Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Response to the Illinois LiberTEA Organization's Federal Candidate Survey

Written on April 27th, 2016

Edited on July 19th, 2016

           Q: What is your view of the monetary system in the U.S. today?

           A: The declining value of the dollar is the chief cause of calls to raise the minimum wage, alleviate poverty, and tax the rich. Congress should routinely audit the Fed, abolish it as soon as possible, and wrest the control of monetary policy back to the people from this private "independent" organization and the moneyed interests that control it. Government should not limit the development of new and alternative currencies, but it should also refrain from treating debt and C.D.O.s as currency.

           Q: What corrective actions could we take right now to improve the economy?

           A: Lower tariffs, and taxes on corporate personal income, to bring jobs and resources back to the country from overseas. Get the balance of trade under control in order to boost and stabilize the value of the dollar. Lead efforts to abolish onerous occupational licensing laws that make it difficult for low-income people to start ordinary enterprises. Stop punishing savings by getting inflation under control and auditing the Fed stop punishing earning money by taxing personal income, stop penalizing trade by taxing sales.

           Q: Do you agree with the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to solve the financial crisis? If not, what could the Fed have done differently?

           A: The Federal Reserve, if it should even exist at all, should not favor low interest rates over high employment. The Federal Reserve's promise to secure loans to risky borrowers was ill advised, and it cannot be trusted to fix the problem that it had a large part in causing. The Fed should not print money, devaluing it in the process, when government can't pay its bills; instead, spending should be decreased.

           Q: Should the Federal Reserve be audited fully, no secrets, or does it need to keep some information under wraps?

           A: Full audit, no secrets.

           Q: What are your thoughts on government debt? Do you believe it is acceptable for the Federal Government to raise the debt ceiling? If yes, for what reason?

           A: It is not acceptable to raise the ceiling; there is no point in having a debt ceiling if you're only going to raise it each time you come close to reaching it. The Federal government must drastically reduce spending, in order to reduce dependence on and debt to the Fed, China, Japan, and future generations of Americans. Even if we don't figure out how to take in more than we spend in order to pay off the debt, we can restore our credit rating soon, as long as we demonstrate as soon as possible that we can at least have a balanced budget without deficits. I would support an amendment that would require a balanced budget, requiring more cuts than revenue increases.

           Q: What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?

           A: With some 800-900 overseas military bases, and troops in about 150 countries, the military is overextended, and our trifling in the internal affairs of other countries is causing disastrous blowback. We spy on our own allies, when we shouldn't have formal alliances in the first place. We train, fund, and arm foreign armies, often only to end up sponsoring decay of societal order and fighting against our own weapons. We can and should drastically reduce spending on military projects not essential to our defense, without cutting pay of military personnel.

           Q: How should we fight a “war on terror”?

           A: By ceasing to train, fund, and arm terrorists. By ceasing to take our counterterrorism strategy from apartheid states with undeclared nuclear weapons. By ceasing to be an imperialist nation that fights wars to obtain natural resources and protect commercial interests instead of the safety of American citizens abroad. Certainly not by continuing to renew the unconstitutional U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the N.S.A., the T.S.A., and putting politicians, celebrities, and infants with names similar to terrorists' on No-Fly lists and lists prohibiting weapons purchases.

           Q: Should the U.S. occupy other countries? If not, would you push to close all bases? Are there any you would keep open and if so why?

           A: The U.S. should only occupy other countries following a congressional declaration of war, and given either danger of American citizens abroad or the invitation by a sovereign country to intervene to stop a humanitarian catastrophe. I would support the dismantlement of all military bases farther than 100 miles from U.S. shores.

           Q: Should the U.S. maintain its standing army? Explain...

           A: The U.S. should maintain its standing army, but a constitutional convention should be called to restore the 2nd Amendment to its original intent of protecting the right to conscientious objection to the draft. Draft registration should end, conscription should be unconstitutional, and the Congress must convince the people that the use of the standing army is in the best interest of popular and national security. The size of military personnel is appropriate, but the Navy and Air Force fleets would do well to be reduced to pre-9/11 levels.

           Q: Is the Patriot Act necessary to protect America? If not, would you vote to fully repeal it?

           A: It is not necessary, and I would vote against renewals and vote to fully repeal it. The Patriot Act violates due process, and makes Americans less safe by violating their right to be safe from those who seek to invade their privacy.

           Q: What information may the U.S. government legally gather about its citizens? When would it be necessary to overstep those boundaries?

           A: The federal Government may only gather information voluntarily surrendered by citizens. It would never be necessary to overstep those boundaries; telephone, internet, bank records, even universal automatic voter registration violates our right to be secure in our papers and effects.

           Q: What limits, if any, should be placed on the U.S. government’s ability to search its citizens without a warrant?

           A: All limits possible. F.B.I. agents can write their own search warrants, and so could the British King's guards. A warrant may not be generalized; it must apply to solely one person or solely one property, and specifically describe the places and items to be searched.

           Q: Should the U.S. government be allowed to protect its citizens’ health by outlawing foods it considers unsafe, or to force medicate (i.e., fluoridation) or force vaccinate citizens?

A: No; this violates people's rights to control what they put in, and do with, their own body. It violates the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. It also adds an unnecessary stigma to the supposedly beneficial foods and drugs and procedures it supposedly promotes. Additionally, food and drug and health standards create a moral hazard, wherein the public assumes these things to be safe simply because they are illegal, and they lower their guard, and personal responsibility is lost in the process. Moreover, health is not mentioned in the Constitution, so the F.D.A. has no business even existing.

           Q: What controls, if any, should be placed on the right to own a gun?

           A: None. Gun control laws are largely written and defended by gun-illiterate people, they are unenforceable save for resort to tyranny, and they have disastrous unintended consequences. I fully support the Second Amendment, however I would not interfere with state laws pertaining to in-state manufacture of weapons, and I do not believe that the law should interfere with people's rights to sue gun sellers and manufacturers. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe that once a gun is sold to you, you take full responsibility with what you do with it; these cases should be settled out of, and laughed out of, court.

           Q: Is there an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals without encroaching on the rights of free, law-abiding citizens? Please explain:

           A: The only effective way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is a well-armed, vigilant law-abiding populace, that is capable of and willing to defend itself against violent criminals, instead of relying on police to show up (after 20 minutes on average, and 5 to 7 minutes at best). Sheriffs promoting private citizens being armed is not the result of police dereliction of duty; an armed populace should a complement to armed police keeping as much peaceful order as they can.

           Q: Is our involvement in and subjugation to global organizations, such as W.H.O. (World Health Organization), N.A.T.O., the U.N., etc., a benefit to U.S. citizens?

           A: No. Our membership in N.A.T.O. only obligated us to defend other nations, the list of which is ever expanding, and we additionally bear disproportionate costs of that defense. While our presence at the U.N. surrenders part of our sovereignty, it at the same time empowers us to exercise a tyranny over the world through our Security Council veto power. I do not support U.S. involvement in any international organization, including W.H.O.; I would not consult the E.U. nor the Arab League before going to war; and besides, the United States of America is already an organization composed of multiple "free, sovereign, and independent" states.

           Q: Would you work to repeal international agreements that purport to hold U.S. citizens and/or property under its jurisdiction, or do you think there might be times when benefits outweigh concessions?

           A: Yes, I would work to repeal such agreements. U.S. citizens and property must be subject only to local, state, and constitutional federal laws. The U.S. is unable to submit to international governments, as it is supposed to submit itself to the states and to the people.

           Q: Are trade agreements with other nations, i.e., N.A.F.T.A., C.A.F.T.A., good for U.S. citizens? Please explain your answer:

           A: I oppose N.A.F.T.A., C.A.F.T.A., T.P.P., and other trade agreements, but not because they fail to retain American jobs and protect American Industry. I oppose them because they are managed trade, not real free trade. Raising tariffs (although it would certainly be cons titutional) would not punish worker exploitation and low health and safety standards in industrializing countries; all it would accomplish is cause countries and companies to increase those problems and worsen human rights and workers' rights in order to turn a profit that would help them offset the costs of the increased tariff. I would oppose managed trade agreements and fight for free trade, and the idea that free trade IS fair trade.

           Q: Should the U.S. give foreign aid to other countries? If yes, for what purposes would it be justified? If not all countries, which would you continue to support?

           A: Absolutely not. Although the foreign aid budget is less than 0.5% of the total budget, it is a perfect place to start. We should not spend taxpayer money financing the military defense, nor the welfare states, of foreign countries, even if they are our allies (which we shouldn't formally have in the first place). Calls to provide aid to two countries in a conflict – ostensibly to make things fair – only increases the chances that America will fund both sides of a foreign war.

           Q: Do you know what nullification is? If yes, how do you plan to use it?

           A: Nullification is when states refuse to enforce federal laws, or pass laws that invalidate federal laws. I would not vote that the federal government interfere with states wishing to pass laws that invalidate unconstitutional federal laws, even if and when formal acts of Congress have not yet removed the federal government's usually temporarily permissible, presidential reorganization authority driven, power to legislate on the matter. I would also support jury nullification, and educating the public about the rights of a jury to decide the facts of the case as well as the morality of the law, in addition to educating the public about Lincoln's response to Wisconsin's nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act.

           Q: When does state law take precedent over federal law?

           A: In all cases, except when it comes to: ensuring a republican form of government with due process and fair trials, etc.; punishing treason, piracy, and counterfeiting; providing for the national defense; coining money and regulating the value thereof; establishing post roads (but not necessarily building roads); keeping interstate commerce regular; protecting intellectual property in a limited way; and a few other powers specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8.

           Q: Would you stand up to the federal government and demand that it stay within the bounds of its enumerated powers and out of state business?

           A: Yes.

           Q: Do federal officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes? If so, explain:

           A: Yes, but only when they have been charged with committing treason, piracy, counterfeiting, or obstructing justice in a way that severely interferes with the maintenance of a just and fair legal and political system.

           Q: What do you see as the #1 problem with illegal immigration?

           A: The #1 problem with immigration is that the D.R.E.A.M. Act, D.A.C.A., and D.A.P.A. have been pushed through executive orders and memoranda, not legislative power. The president's job is to enforce the law which Congress passes, not to write law.

           Q: What actions could we take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?

           A: Allow states to run their welfare and poverty and social systems the way they please, free from federal orders, limitations, interventions, and tempting grants with strings attached. However, non-violent undocumented immigrants should not be prohibited from seeking voluntary charity to provide services normally distributed as public social welfare.

           Q: If you could make one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

           A: A Balanced Budget Amendment, requiring at least a 7-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases whenever there is a deficit and/or a standing or accumulating national debt.

           Q: Would you vote to end government subsidies to private industry?

           A: Yes.

           Q: What should our government’s action be against whistle blowers, if any?

           A: No action should be taken against whistle-blowers if the information they leak pertains to illegal or unconstitutional activities undertaken by government. Their passports should not be revoked, and they should not be charged with treason unless they provide either substantial support to, or comfort of, or pledge allegiance to, a foreign sovereign nation.

           Q: Do you know what Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development and the Communitarian agenda is? Do you support it? Why or why not?

           A: I do not support Agenda 21, I believe that the U.S. should withdraw from the agreement, even though it is voluntary and non-binding. Although I do believe that demands for sustainable development and other environmental regulations can and often do hamper industrial development and productivity, I support imposing fees on unsustainable development, and on blight and disuse of land, in order to take the tax burden off of income earners, buyers, and businesses, and in order to implement a taxation regime that punishes destruction of our planet instead of discouraging production and taxes away productive development of private property and the commons.

No comments:

Post a Comment