Speech Urging Congressman Brad Schneider to Support the Block the Bombs Act (August 27th, 2025)

      The following speech will be delivered at 10:30 A.M. on the morning of Wednesday, August 27^th, 2025, at Congressman Brad Schneider’s neighborhood office, inside the Avon Township Center (located at 433 E. Washington St. in Round Lake Park, Illinois).

          Thank you for having me. I’m Joe Kopsick, Chair of the Green Party of Lake County. I ran as an independent against Brad Schneider, for U.S. House, in 2016 and 2020.

          The phrase “Blue Dog Democrat” refers to a voter who believes so deeply in “voting blue, no matter who”, that that person would even vote for a blue dog – no matter how pro-war, or capitalist, the dog might be – as long as the dog were to run as a Democrat.

          In 1995 – in a completely tone-deaf move – a group of “moderate”, “centrist”, and conservative Democrats adopted this disrespectful nickname, as the name of their new ideological caucus within the Democratic Party, the Blue Dog Coalition.

          Together, BlueDogPAC – and the New Democrat Coalition (associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel) – donated more than $50,000 to Brad Schneider between 2013 and 2019.

          Brad Schneider also accepted $7,500 from NoLabelsPAC, a pro-Israel group that disguises itself as “moderate” and “centrist” just like the Blue Dogs do.

          But, thankfully, the era of these “Democrats In Name Only” is almost over. That is, as long as Congressman Brad Schneider promises to support the Block the Bombs Act.

Brad Schneider, the current chair of the New Democrat Coalition – which brokered the deals between Bill Clinton and Wall Street that turned the banking sector into the oligopoly it is today – is going to save us.

          Brad Schneider, who was among the top three congressmen in terms of money received from pro-Israel P.A.C.s, for three out of four election cycles between 2013 and 2020.

          Brad Schneider, who failed to meaningfully distance himself from his former opponent Bob Dold’s statement that he would not be willing to “give one of our allies an ultimatum” by making continued aid to the State of Israel conditional upon that country signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

          What does this mean? Brad Schneider wants the State of Israel to be free to sell nuclear weapons to other countries. Well, I’d certainly like to know what countries those might be, wouldn’t you?

          In 2019, I asked Congressman Schneider whether he would have supported H.R. 3585, which authorized the expenditure of funds, to the military, in a way that would have allowed females as young as seventeen, to be required to register for the selective service (alongside males).

          Schneider mentioned his son’s military service, and - more or less - simply said “everyone should serve”. Residents of the Tenth District: Brad Schneider supports a draft.

          The enforcement of the draft potentially allows the government to fine parents nearly $200,000 for failing to register their children as cannon fodder for a military that’s stuck in an endless, unwinnable war against “terror” (which is really just a war on Islam and the continued existence of the Palestinian people). This policy is unconscionable. We should not be expanding the draft; we should be abolishing it.

 

          But New Democrats, like Schneider – and Rahm Emanuel, in particular – seem to reason that “Oh, Israel has a draft, so let’s have ‘mandatory national service’ too. Israel drafts most of their eighteen-year-olds, so let’s make seventeen-year-olds register, and then keep it legal to draft them when they turn eighteen.”

          Folks, I don’t know about you, but a country that appears on the verge of considering bringing back the draft, or even child soldiers, is not a country I recognize; it was the all-volunteer army that has made this country great. Moreover, this is not the behavior of something that should be calling itself “the most moral army on Earth”; and it should certainly not serve as an inspiration for our policies, here in America.

          Since arriving in Congress, Brad Schneider has presided over a more than tripling of U.S. aid to Israel (from $3.5 billion per year, to $12 billion).

          In 2009, Ohio congressman Jim Traficant told Fox News that that $3.5 billion only represented “the foreign aid bill”, and that another 11.5 to 16.5 billion dollars are sent to Israel, in total, by American taxpayers (including “trade compacts”, “economic assistance”, and “military assistance”).

          [Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0scNGzWfv8A]

          As you can imagine, Traficant did not last very long in Congress.

          The point being: The State of Israel does not even need more U.S. taxpayer -funded foreign aid money, to begin with.

          But, it’s OK, because now it’s all gonna change. That’s because Brad Schneider knows that his inaction, regarding the ongoing genocide in Gaza, is the last straw for people in the Tenth District, or else his career in politics is at stake.

          He knows that this is his last chance to declare his commitment to not only the law, but also to peace; and his commitment to defense over aggression, by joining as a co-sponsor on this Block the Bombs bill, which would limit only the sale of weapons of war; not the sale of defensive tools, to the Israeli Defense Forces.

          And so – Congressman Schneider – we want to know, once and for all, what it is. Are you going to take this once-in-a-lifetime, “least you can do” step, to help end a genocide?

          Are you going to take this tiniest baby-step towards saving the American people approximately half a trillion dollars per year, by ceasing to let Netanyahu and his coalition choose who will be America’s enemies, and in which wars America will fight?

          The choice is simple, Brad: Be on the right side of history, or else announce your retirement; right here, right now. This is your last chance; announce your support of the Block the Bombs Act today.

          The people are watching.

 

 

Image created in Adobe Illustrator by Joseph W. Kopsick,
based on a hand-drawn image by a Green Party member
who did not ask to be credited.

Click, and open in new tab and/or window,
and/or download, and open, to view in full resolution.

 

Written between August 24^th and 27^th, 2025

Published on August 27^th, 2025

Image created between August 24th and 27th, 2025
and added on October 9th, 2025.

Summary of My Analysis Regarding Who Carried Out the Attacks of September 11th, 2001, and Their Ties to Jeffrey Epstein

     I agree with Webster Tarpley's analysis; that the U.S., U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan collaborated to carry-out the 9/11 attacks. It was an inside job (U.S.) and an outside job (U.K., Israel, Saudis, and Pakistan) at the same time. Israel was one of the countries that admittedly warned the U.S. that attacks were imminent, in addition to the U.K., Italy, and Russia.

     Israeli MOSSAD agents with Sayeret Matkal (counterintelligence) infiltrated existing al-Qaeda cells that were mostly Saudi, and provided them with some of the equipment, funding, and/or training they needed to acquire the materials and skills to take out the W.T.C..One of the "Dancing Israelis" admitted on Israeli TV in 2002, "our purpose was to document the event", which - coupled with the fact that they were seen celebrating on a rooftop, laughing, and taking photos - strongly suggests that they had advance knowledge of the attacks. All five of the "Dancing Israelis" were M.O.S.S.A.D. agents working under Dominic Suter, for a fake moving company called Urban Moving Systems, Inc. (which contains the letters M.O.S.S.A.D. in order). Ostensibly working for a moving company allowed them to possess box-cutters without suspicion; and they were arrested in New Jersey later that day by Officer Scott deCarlo, with box-cutters, socks full of money, and maps of New York City with highlighted routes. The attorney for the Dancing Israelis, who helped them return to Israel without criminal charges, was Alan Dershowitz, who later served as the attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, despite being one of his possible accomplices to sex crimes.

     Larry Silverstein admitted to "pulling" one of the buildings (World Trade Center #7), claiming that it was due to fire damage, and on the advice of the New York Fire Department. He was able to double his insurance money - from $3.5 billion to $7 billion - by claiming that the attacks were separate and unrelated. He first began desiring to own the W.T.C. just six weeks after the first bombing of the W.T.C. in 1993. He was mysteriously absent from the W.T.C. on 9/11, saying he had a dermatology appointment. Silverstein was friends with several past prime ministers of Israel, including Ehud Barak, who was friends with Jeffrey Epstein, and was photographed exiting Epstein's New York City apartment.

     Witnesses stated that a message came over the loudspeaker in the second building to be hit - between the two hits - telling everybody to be calm and remain in the building. And one of the buildings contained what some called a "fusion center"; an F.B.I. headquarters, occupying an entire floor. Some say the attacks were planned from this center, which allowed for easy destruction of the evidence when the towers were destroyed. Just as the computer banks that stored the Pentagon's financial information was wiped out - as evidence - just a day after Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.1 trillion had become mysteriously unaccounted for.

Written and published on July 29th, 2024.

Forty-Eight Badly Needed Reforms to Policing, Drugs, Immigration, and War That Could Save America From a Second Trump Term (Incomplete)

     Americans are increasingly waking up to the fact that Joe Biden is indeed guilty of growing America's prison system.

     The 1994 Clinton crime bill arguably contributed to an increase in disproportionate imprisonment of African-Americans, and caused hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders to go to prison.

     Although many in the liberal media would have voters believe that Biden regrets his "vote" on the bill, Biden has said he regrets that vote "not one bit". In fact, to characterize Biden's contribution to that bill as merely a vote, is deceptive. Biden wrote the bill.

     If the Biden-Harris Administration doesn't do something to show they're better at dealing with crime than the Trump-Pence Administration was - and if Joe Biden doesn't repeal his signature legislation (the 1994 crime bill) or substantially reform policing in a way that secures the progressives' vote in 2024 - then it's likely that Donald Trump could have a chance at re-election to the presidency.

     Here is a set of forty-eight reforms - to policing, drugs, immigration, and war - that, if implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration, could prevent the re-election of Donald Trump.
     These suggested reforms are organized according to the level of government to which they correspond. Look up your state and federal representatives' phone numbers and e-mail addresses - on www.house.gov, www.senate.gov, and the website of your state's election board - to find out whom, and how, to call lawmakers about these issues.

Call your U.S. congressman or U.S. senator to demand that President Biden and his Justice Department:

     1. Issue executive orders and signing statements that will end enforcement of the 1994 crime bill, resulting in the partial or total repeal of the 1994 omnibus crime bill which Joe Biden authored (i.e., the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994).   

     2. Treat federal “mandatory” minimum sentencing guidelines as the optional guidelines they are; regarding them as unconstitutional or at least merely advisory and optional (being that they allow courts to take into account information not covered in the guidelines, and can create ex post facto law problems).     

     3. End the federal funding of S.A.M.H.S.A. (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration)’s  state drug courts, authorized by Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act.     

     4. Remove cannabis products, opioids, 18-MC, and ibogaine from the list of Schedule I drugs.  

     5. End the scheduling of all drugs that are not extremely toxic to the point where touching them can         cause overdoses.   

     6. Support increased funding for drug addiction-related needs and Covid-related mental health needs.



Call your U.S. senator(s) to demand that they urge President Biden and his Dept. of Homeland Security to:

     7. Prohibit V.I.P.R. squads (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams) from searching for drugs, except for drugs which can cause overdoses if touched, and as part of searches following the discovery of evidence indicating intent of committing a real crime against people or property.

     8. Repeal all portions of the Patriot Act which violate due process and/or are not essential to updating laws regarding legal technologies for tracking criminals.  

     9. Prevent U.S. Code Title 6 on Domestic Security (now non-positive law) from becoming positive law.

     10. Direct border guards to replace hot plastic bottles full of water with cold water, instead of knocking them over. 

     11. Pass a law requiring detention facilities to keep sources of drinking water and toilet water at least fifteen feet away from one another, and both available to all detainees.

     12. Abolish the Department of Homeland Security, placing any duties of the I.C.E. and C.B.P. which don’t violate due process, under the authority of a new agency called the Department of Naturalization Regulation Services.

     13. Refrain from using Covid-19 as an excuse to discourage immigration; allow Doctors Without Borders -type organizations, and other volunteer health organizations, to treat refugees at the border.

     14. Train T.S.A. agents to be mindful of their customers’ medical needs and limitations.    

     15. End the racist practice of joint U.S.-Israeli police training.



Call your U.S. senator to demand that President Biden and his Defense Department: 

     16. De-fund the L.E.S.O. (Law Enforcement Support Office), ending the 1033 program that put tanks in local police departments.

     17. Cease enforcing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 (which authorized the War on Terror), or else call upon Congress to propose legislation which would repeal that law and end the wars.

     18. Verify that the state of emergency over the situation in Korea is not still in place. Demand review of Executive Orders 10195 and 10585 to make sure that E.O. 10195 is not still in effect and was totally ended by E.O. 10585. Additionally, demand review of E.O.s 13466, 13551, 13570, 13687, 13722, and 13810, and consider reversing them or otherwise ceasing to enforce them.

     19. Withdraw troops and contractors from Iraq and Syria.

     20. Deliver on their plan to pull all troops out of Afghanistan by 9/11/21, and don’t leave contractors.

     21. End U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia’s racist war on Yemen.

     22. Withdraw more troops from Germany than Trump did (12,000) and dismantle Ramstein Air Force Base.

     23. Withdraw troops from South Korea, and dismantle the base at Camp Humphreys.

     24. Dismantle bases in Baghdad, Diego Garcia, and Thule in Greenland, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

     25. Unite the Department of Defense with the Department of State, and shift funds from militarism to diplomacy while creating a Department of Peace.



Call your state senator or state assemblyperson to demand that your state’s governor:

     26-29. Nullify the 1994 omnibus crime bill, resulting in:   

          26. One hundred thousand fewer police officers on the street.

          27. An end to the federal subsidization of states to build more prisons.     

          28. The decrease of some drug penalties.

          29. The re-legalization of 19 types of automatic weapons.

     30. Cease enforcing laws against victimless infractions which are based on the Model Penal Code (especially the governors of New York, New Jersey, and Oregon, which have fully implemented it).

     31. Protect the right of self-defense against the deadly and illegal use of police force. Your state courts and police honor the precedent set in Bad Elk v. U.S. (civilian right of self-defense against police using deadly force without a warrant or probable cause). [Notes: This precedent needs to be upheld by the supreme courts of AK, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, ID, UT, AZ, MT, CO, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MN, IA, MO, AR, WI, IL, KY, TN, OH, FL, DC, DE, NJ, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, and ME. A campaign to urge governors J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Gavin Newsom of California, Greg Abbott of Texas, Ron deSantis of Florida, and Mike deWine of Ohio - and Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser, would do the most to protect the  largest African-American populations by state, from unlawful use of police force.]

Call your state senator or state assemblyperson to demand that they:

     32. Author legislation which would bring parole and parole boards back to your state. [Note: OR, CA, AZ, KS, IL, MS, IN, OH, NC, DE, and ME have no parole boards; parole boards need development (or it’s unclear whether there are parole boards) in HI, WA, MT, CO, NM, ND, SD, MN, IA, MO, LA, MI, WV, VA, FL, NY, MD, DC, VT, and MA; and AK, NV, ID, UT, WY, NE, OK, TX, AR, WI, KY, TN, AL, GA, PA, SC, NJ, CT, NH, and RI have active parole boards.]

     33. Author legislation which would replace "beat cops" with "peace officers".

     34. Consider the eight "Eight Can't Wait" measures recommended by Campaign Zero. These are I) banning chokeholds and strangleholds; II) requiring de-escalation; III) requiring warning before shooting; IV) requiring officers to exhaust all alternatives before shooting; V) charging officers witnessing abuse with a duty to intervene; VI) banning shooting at moving vehicles; VII) establishing a a use of force continuum; and VIII) requiring that all force be reported.

     35. Sponsor statutes requiring police to undergo training demanding that they adhere to a strict continuum and rules of engagement regarding justifiable use of police force. First, police should locate the person who called the police and make sure they are safe. Second, the officer should attempt de-escalation. Third, the officer should resort to potentially deadly tasing and macing and pepper-spraying, but only as a "last resort". Firing no more than one or two bullets at a time as a “last last resort” should only be implemented in policing districts where community policing boards enthusiastically want them; while all other communities should consider allowing all or most police officers to have only pepper spray, mace, tasers (all of which can be deadly if used on the wrong person) and work without guns. Additionally - although we should always remember that using a gun is always "shooting to kill" - some "shoot not to kill" (or "shoot to wound") measures should be considered. Officers should be taught that shooting in the legs or arms could cause a suspect to bleed out, and that shooting to graze the shoulder or the surface of the stomach is less likely to cause a mortal injury.

     36. Sponsor statutes requiring police training to include testing that reminds them that some of the people they will encounter are sick, old, feeble, autistic, handicapped, or of limited mobility, or may be wearing headphones, or may be otherwise unable to hear and comply with officers’ commands.

     37. Sponsor statutes requiring police to wear cameras that face the officer as well as the suspect, which cannot be switched off by officers until their end of their shift

     38. Help legalize the filming and recording of police officers, through repealing two-party consent laws and replacing them with one-party consent laws. Thirty-five states have one-party consent laws, while five are solid two-party consent states, and ten have a mix. States should consider 1) not requiring consent from any civilian, for recording, when there is no reason to expect privacy, 2) not requiring consent from officers to be recorded, and only requiring consent from one civilian and notification of the officer, in order to use the film in court, whether there is no reason to expect privacy or not, and 3) notification of a civilian that they‘re being recorded when or where there is a reason to expect privacy.

     39. Sponsor laws, on policing and health and insurance, that protect suspects’ rights to refuse to submit to forced blood draws, and nurses’ rights to refuse to draw blood from unconscious patients.

     40. Sponsor legislation ending qualified immunity in your state (needed in all states but CO & NM).

     41. Sponsor statutes prohibiting the police from “having sex with” (raping) people in custody. [Note: These laws are needed in NV, ID, MT, WY, CO, NM, SD, NE, KS, TX, MN, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, IL, MS, KY, TN, AL, MI, WV, VA, SC, NY, PA, MD, DC, DE, VT, NH, MA, RI, and ME]

     42. Sponsor “Ban the Box” -type legislation at the state level, so people who have paid their debt to society can get jobs without disclosing their previous status, and rejoin society in productivity and financial independence. [Note: AK, NV, ID, UT, AZ, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, MS, MI, IN, KY, TN, AL, OH, GA, FL, WV, SC, NY, PA, VA, NC, MD, DE, CT, NH, and ME currently lack Ban the Box laws.]

     43. Will inform voters that the 15th Amendment protects the right to vote regardless of previous condition of servitude (which includes involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime; i.e., modern-day slavery in prisons) and regardless of whether one lacks identification or an address (due to the prohibition on poll taxes), and that 14th Amendment incorporation requires the states to follow suit. [Note: AK, HI, WA, ID, UT, AZ, MT, WY, CO, NM, ND, SD, OK, MA, and DC may still not have adopted the 15th Amendment].

     44. Will support efforts to allow ex-offenders who have served their sentences, to vote. [Note: AK, HI, OR, ID, UT, MT, CO, NM, ND, KS, OK, TX, MN, MO, AR, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH, GA, SC, WV, DC, PA, NJ, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, and ME currently allow people to resume voting, automatically or through applying to vote, upon release. WA, CA, AZ, WY, SD, NE, IA, LA, MS, KY, TN, AL, VA, NC, FL, MD, DE, NY either ban voting by ex-offenders, or else require governors‘ pardons, waiting, and/or the paying of fines or fees, in order to vote.] 

     45. Support reforms to policing which follow Campaign Zero’s 10 recommendations (end broken windows policing, community oversight, limit use of force, independently investigate and prosecute, community representation, body cameras, training, ending for-profit policing, demilitarization, and fair police union contracts).

     46. Support the repeal of laws which needlessly and irresponsibly criminalize homelessness (such as laws against camping, panhandling, hitchhiking, fishing, owning too many possessions, public inebriation, etc.)

     47. Support the repeal of unnecessary limitations on access to libraries, parks, beaches, and food pantries on account of a person’s zip code.

     48. Look to the coercive control laws of Ireland as a model on which to build state statutes protecting domestic abuse victims from having their finances and other important decisions controlled by abusers.

Created on April 28th and 30th, 2021

Originally Published on April 30th, 2021
under the title "Forty-Three Badly Needed Reforms to Policing, Drugs, and War
That Could Save America From a Second Trump Term"

Edited and Expanded on May 3rd, 4th, and 8th 2021

Bob Dold, Brad Schneider, and Joe Kopsick: Comparison on 23 Issues

Created on October 11th, 2016

Published on October 12th, 2016

Edited on October 15th and 19th, 2016

Letter to the Editor of the Daily Herald on Illinois's 10th District U.S. House Race

Originally Written on October 6th, 2016

Edited on October 11th, 2016

Dear Editor,

      After following the race for U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10^th District for a full year, I am still not convinced that either candidate is preferable to the other, nor that either candidate shares a majority of my views.

      While I share many of Congressman Dold's positions on trade, and many of Mr. Schneider's positions on marriage, their similarity regarding most other issues is troubling. Both candidates' voting records have contributed to increased taxes and spending, and to the growth of the size and scope of the federal government. There is no reason to expect that either one of them will not continue these patterns if elected.

     Both candidates support the same disastrous foreign policy towards the Middle East, domestic surveillance, restrictions on the right to bear arms, the failed A.C.A. health law, continued federal funding for organizations providing abortions, and inappropriate executive rather than congressional action on immigration; and both candidates oppose personalizing Social Security and are ambivalent on decriminalizing marijuana.

     Most importantly, in this “year of the outsider” election, neither candidate has stuck his neck out to support new proposals to help solve problems that have persisted in our country for decades. Neither has said anything original or refreshing about labor policy; nor has either of them demonstrated a unique way of understanding the relationship between taxation, economic productivity, and ecology.

     Moreover, they do not seem to subscribe to the notion that our freedoms and rights (including the freedoms to marry, travel, work, buy and sell, drink, smoke, vote, and defend oneself) are natural, fundamental, and inalienable; that they cannot be voted away by legislatures, nor turned into privileges to be sold or revoked at the whim of government.

     The 10^th District needs another choice in this election.

- Joseph W. Kopsick

Lake Bluff, Illinois
Write-In Candidate for U.S. House (IL-10)

Twenty-One Questions for Bob Dold and Brad Schneider

Written Between October 1^st and 16^th, 2016
Published on October 10^th, 2016
Edited and Expanded on October 20th, 2016

 

            One of some eight or nine debates between Illinois's 10^th District U.S. congressional candidates Bob Dold and Brad Schneider took place at Lake Forest High School in Lake Forest, Illinois, at 1:30 on the afternoon of Sunday, October 16^th, 2016. The debate, hosted by the Lake County League of Women Voters, was free and open to the public.

Audience members were invited to submit questions at the debate by writing them on notecards. Since, as a write-in candidate, my name is not technically on the ballot, I was not invited to the debate; however, I was there to submit questions. Since audience members were only permitted to ask several questions each, below I have listed twenty-one questions that I would like to hear the candidates answer.

 

Ninth Amendment

     I believe that the freedoms to marry, travel, work, go on strike, buy and sell, drink, smoke, vote, and defend oneself, are natural, fundamental, and inalienable rights; that they cannot be voted away by legislatures. Do you agree, or do you believe that our rights are mere privileges, which are sold or revoked at government's whim, and that we need to pay taxes on - and pay for applications, permits, and licenses for - everything we do?

Ninth Amendment
     Is there a single, unifying reason why self-defense, marriage, voting, working in an occupation, buying and selling, and traveling, should not be considered natural rights or freedoms, but rather as privileges which can be sold or denied by government, which has the exclusive authority to profit from the sale of license and permit fees?

Government's Role in Society

     What is your preferred vision of the kind of society that government has a responsibility to help create; a compulsory society, or a voluntary society? Would you prefer a compulsory society in which there is a military draft, and nearly everything we do is taxed, and may not be done without applying for a permit or license, and paying fees therefor? Or do you prefer an all-volunteer military; low barriers of entry into the professions; and a tax base relying only on voluntary contributions, user fees, and fees punishing waste?

Private Property
     What are you doing to make it easier to own a car with full exclusionary rights and access to the vehicle's Statement of Origin? What have you done to make it easier to fully own a home without being subject to neighborhood association guidelines and property taxes that disincentivize construction, growth, and useful production thereupon? What would you do to make it easier to owning landed property in full allodial title?


Separation of Powers
     How can you defend the constitutionality of federal involvement in health and education, without resorting to making excuses for the same kind of inappropriate delegation of congressional powers to the president; the kind that brought us the expansion of domestic surveillance and the size of the executive branch, in addition to the expansion of presidential war powers which led to the second invasion of Iraq?

Elections

     Which of the following is the biggest problem pertaining to campaign finance?: 1) lack of transparency in donation disclosures; 2) unlimited donations; or 3) the influence of lobbyists on expanding government, with its favors and privileges for donors and favored industries, in a way that makes such large donations typical? Also, would you support limiting your own office to four consecutive terms at a time?

Amending the Constitution

     Is there any amendment that you would like to see repealed or heavily amended; such as the 14^th, 16^th, or 17^th Amendments? Would you support a new amendment to the Constitution? Would you support voting reform, term limits, an Equal Rights Amendment, or a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Taxes and Productivity

     Do you suspect that taxing any behaviors at lower rates might yield greater revenues? Do you think that keeping tax rates too high might risk inadvertently disincentivizing the behaviors being taxed (namely earning money, buying and selling goods and services, making investments, importing goods, giving gifts, and bequeathing inheritances)? Would it be less harmful to base all government revenue on voluntary contributions; user fees; fees for mineral resource extraction; and fees penalizing waste, blight, and pollution?

Taxes and Poverty

     How is poverty best addressed? Would you support: 1) extending the Earned Income Tax Credit; 2) applying homesteading tax credits to low-cost housing; 3) establishing a citizens' dividend or sovereign wealth fund; or 4) the Negative Income Tax, giving tax payments to those below the poverty level?

Unions
     First, were things better for workers when unions engaged in strikes without the permission of a government labor relations board? Second, would it benefit workers to amend the law so that wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes, and wide-scale boycotts are legal, effective, and possible? Third and last, would you amend the Wagner Act so that unions are no longer required to represent all workers in a workplace, including those who do not consent to paying dues and do not want the benefits of representation?

Wages, Treasury, and the Budget
     Would it still be necessary to raise the minimum wage for private-sector jobs, if we had a balanced budget, a more sound currency, a greater purchasing power, and consumers' costs could be relieved directly by eliminating duties, imposts, tariffs, and sales taxes?

Taxation of Business
     When it comes to enterprise, which types of behaviors by companies should be taxed; 1) malinvestments; 2) personal income, executive bonuses, sales and profits, imports, capital gains, investments, and retirement and health accounts; or 3) pollution, waste, abuse and disuse of land, and extraction of natural resources?

Corporate Privilege
     Would you agree that it is not possible to effectively boycott companies, unless and until several types of government-granted, taxpayer-funded corporate and small business privileges and supports are either revoked or more strictly limited? Also, should multinational businesses be free to sue governments for loss of potential future profits, if those governments don't agree to do business with those companies?

Banking and Bailouts

     How is the public best insulated from the risks of Wall Street speculation, the excesses of commercial banking, and the risk of bailouts? Should Glass-Steagall be restored, should the amount of money that the F.D.I.C. can insure be lowered, is it the credit and bond rating systems that need reform, or should something else be done?

Abortion

     Should partial-birth abortion be legal, should it be publicly funded, and is it abortion or infanticide? Also, what in the Constitution gives any agent or agency of the federal government authority on matters of abortion, except when it comes to whether health insurance should cover the reproductive health needs of federal workers? Lastly, does anything about either the 9^th or the 14^th Amendment agree or conflict with your position on abortion?

Guns and the Draft
     Should the Second Amendment be modified as to recognize the natural right to refuse service in the militia; and the right to claim a moral philosophical, or religious conscientious objection to being required to render military service in person, whether as part of a draft or mandatory civil emergency preparedness service? Should women be required to register for the draft; or should mandatory draft registration end altogether, and the draft be repealed via a constitutional amendment?

Foreign Aid to Israel

The federal government sends $3.8 billion to the State of Israel each year. Considering that an IRmep/Google poll revealed last month that more than 80% of American adult internet users surveyed, thought that aid to Israel would better be spent on something else, would you consider reducing or revoking aid until the Israelis agree to end their draft, withdraw from illegally occupied territories, admit their possession of nuclear weapons, and sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Israel and Iran

   What would you say to a voter who opposes foreign aid to both the State of Israel and its majority-Muslim neighbor states, for the same reasons; women's rights violations, denial of religious freedoms, disregard of civil liberties in policing and military recruitment, and non-transparent nuclear military ambitions? Could Israel take a more merciful role in the peace process? Lastly, do you support the Iran deal, and why or why not?

Schneider's Foreign Policy

Mr. Schneider, what should be done about U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Should we stay in Iraq to fight I.S.I.S., or work with the Russians to achieve peace in Syria? Would you support the Iraq partition plan, or time-tables for withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan? Finally, should the U.S. Army be guarding Pakistan's border with India instead of its border with Afghanistan?

Dold's Inconsistencies

Congressman Dold, what would you tell a conservative or Republican voter who feels that you have flip-flopped on repealing Obamacare, and sees your commercials where you promote gun control and continuing funding for Planned Parenthood, and wonder whether there are any key issues on which you are in total agreement with conservative voters?

Rahm Emanuel

Have you met Rahm Emanuel, do you think he is a good leader, and do you think he has done anything unethical in any of his roles in government or business - such as his time as a Clinton fundraiser and adviser, on the board of Freddie Mac, in his role in the 2008 restructuring, as President Obama's Chief of Staff, or as the Mayor of Chicago - that should disqualify him from seeking higher offices?

Letter to the Editors of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times on Illinois's 10th District U.S. House Race

Written on October 6^th, 2016

Published on October 7^th, 2016

Dear Editor,
      After following the race for U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10^th District for a full year, I am still not convinced that either candidate is preferable to the other, nor that either candidate shares a majority of my views.

      While I share many of Congressman Dold's positions on trade, and many of Mr. Schneider's positions on marriage, their similarity regarding most other issues is troubling. Both candidates' voting records have contributed to increased taxes and spending, and to the growth of the size and scope of the federal government. There is no reason to expect that either one of them will not continue these patterns if elected.

      Both candidates support the same disastrous foreign policy towards the Middle East which has weakened our credibility and leadership abroad over the last several decades. Both support expansions of domestic surveillance which undermine due process and which are destructive of privacy. Both candidates have supported measures that interfere with the right to keep and bear arms; measures which diminish our abilities to defend ourselves from violent crime.

      On health, both candidates have opposed efforts to defund and repeal Obamacare, the bailout of the health insurance industry which has increased health spending, while subjecting the medical sector to unnecessary new taxes and regulations. Both support continued federal funding for organizations that provide abortions, an extremely contentious policy which in no way promotes the general welfare.

     On immigration, both have praised the executive-penned DREAM Act, which would contravene congressional authority on naturalization policy. Both candidates have voted to oppose the personalization of Social Security, and have been reticent about taking steps toward a reasonable drug policy.

     Most importantly, in this “year of the outsider” election, neither candidate has stuck his neck out to support new proposals to help solve problems that have persisted in our country for decades. Neither has said anything original or refreshing about labor policy; nor has either of them demonstrated a unique way of understanding the relationship between taxation, economic productivity, and ecology.

     Moreover, they do not seem to subscribe to the notion that our freedoms and rights (including the freedoms to marry, travel, work, buy and sell, drink, smoke, vote, and defend oneself) are natural, fundamental, and inalienable; that they cannot be voted away by legislatures, nor turned into privileges to be sold or revoked at the whim of government.

     The 10^th District needs another choice in this election.

- Joseph W. Kopsick

Lake Bluff, Illinois
Write-In Candidate for U.S. House (IL-10)

Thoughts on the 2004 Election

 Originally Written on November 27th, 2004

Edited on December 6th, 2015

Edits Shown in [Brackets]

     There are several things that have come to my attention concerning the presidential election that have to be addressed.

      Some people seem to believe that people should not criticize the president and his policies, sometimes saying, “he’s our president and we have to support him.” That statement represents the fear of questioning authority and disagrees with the very first freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. If that statement were true, then everyone in the country would have no choice but to agree with every move the current president makes, and always reelect him, effectively doing away with the democratic voting process.

      This year’s candidates spend too much time talking about their war records. Showing the country how the fact that they served[,] and how long and how hard they worked[,] may have some influence on how they plan to deal with the armed forces and our foreign policy, but using attack ads is not the best way to do it. These candidates should get to debating right away about as many important issues as they can[,] and not waste the American people’s time with one issue that has so little to do with the future.

      The polls are not reflecting the country’s change in politics because the youngest citizens eligible to vote are not voicing their opinions. The majority of the United States is more liberal than the polls show because younger citizens, who are more liberal than the previous generation, tend to be less interested and active in politics than their parents. If the voting rate were any lower than it is now at about 50% (of eligible voters), we could never be assured that the laws are representing the will of the majority, like they are designed to do.

      Candidates’ spending time with children is a distraction from the legitimate questions and concerns that educated registered voters need to have answered to make their decisions. Reading books to schoolchildren and kissing babies are nothing but photo opportunities that waste time[, and are done in order to gain] votes from weak-minded people who vote for the candidate with the more attractive personality. Nobody should cast his or her vote based on which party a group of grade-school students favor.

      It should have no bearing on an election whatsoever whether Teresa Heinz Kerry would make a better first lady than Laura Bush based on how they act in public or what they think about education. Polls printed in magazines and even shown on CNN ask people which First Lady they would prefer, as though either of them is up for election to a government position. The first lady does not have any official duties and it is preposterous that George W. Bush would say the best reason for his reelection is that his wife would be the first lady for four more years. Their wives’ political thoughts should matter in an election only if they run for public office themselves.