Showing posts with label TSA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TSA. Show all posts

Friday, February 28, 2020

Thirty-Five Forms of Child Abuse and Trafficking That Are Legal or Supported by Government (Incomplete)

Table of Contents

     1. The groping of children by T.S.A. agents
     2. The use of zero-tolerance drug policies to excuse the arrest and detention of children
     3. The use of the fact that students disrobe in locker rooms to excuse strip searches of minor students
     4. The police use of "bait trucks" to lure teenagers and poor people into stealing, to excuse their arrest
     5. The sale of teenage delinquents to for-profit prisons by American judges
     6. The use of "trash TV" shows, and federal law, in the 1990s, to promote boot camps as supposedly less abusive alternatives to prison
     7. The legal abduction of migrant children by I.C.E. agents at the border
     8. The legalized hitting of children due to lax standards set by C.P.S.
     9. Schools instructing bullying victims to hug their tormenters     10. Schools' deprivations of parents' rights and students' privacy during field trips
     11. The calculation of states' disbursements to public schools based on attendance turns schools into prisons
     12. The genocidal separation of children from parents, which is called "compulsory education"
     13. The molestation of children in public schools
     14. The taxpayer funding of legal defense expenses for teachers accused of molestation
     15. Teachers' access to students, and students' access to contraceptives
     16. Government attempts to refuse to grant diplomas to students unless they get hired, continue their education, or enlist in the military
     17. The recruitment of young adults into the military where they can't sue for rape
     18. The Violence Against Women Act functions as a rape and domestic abuse insurance program
     19. The refusal of courts to remove children from the custody of abusive parents simply because they are actively trying to remain a part of the children's lives
     20. The subjugation of American children to debt slavery through the Social Security System
     21. The splitting-up of families by the child support system (Social Security Title IV-D)
     22. The splitting-up of families by family law courts
     23. The abuse of adoption laws to justify taking biological children into custody
     24. The occasional refusal to remove a molested child from a home, or sentence child molesters to prison, on the grounds that the abuser is the biological parent of the child, is the child's caregiver and supports the child financially, has gone through treatment, and/or "wouldn't fare well in prison"
     25. The death of children following placement in foster care by family services departments
     26. The normalization of kidnapping, through phony "kidnappings" of high school students, by other students, as part of birthday celebrations
     27. The lack of an 18-year age of consent law
     28. The legalized use of the "I thought she was older" defense in statutory rape cases
     29. The decriminalized interstate trafficking of 12-to-16-year-olds by people less than 4 years older
     30. The invalidation of twenty states' age of consent laws, as the result of Quintana-Esquivel v. Sessions
     31. The legality of marrying minors, with the consent of a judge and/or a parent, in ten states
     32. The refusal to give serious sentences to police officers accused of statutory rape and child molestation
     33. The continued service, in Congress, of lawmakers whom have been charged with "underage prostitution" or child sex trafficking scandals, or have been caught on tape molesting children
     34. The use of the monetary system and financial pressure to coerce adults into accepting putting their children to work
     35. The possibility that the BAR Association (attorneys' union) is a syndicate of homosexual rapists and child molesters whom are covering-up each other's sex crimes.




Content



     1. The groping of children by T.S.A. agents

     The Transportation Security Administration agents give no presumption of innocence to passengers. This is “guilty until proven innocent” and it subverts the idea of maintaining the rule of law in order to create a just and civil society. In presuming guilt, executing unwarranted searches, and assuming consent, the T.S.A. ignores passengers' due process rights recognized by the 4th and 5th Amendments; namely the rights to be secure in one's person and papers (etc.) except upon presentation of a specific warrant, and to be free from undue searches and seizures.
     Children flying on planes in America are not immune from the T.S.A.'s choice of “porn or grope” (as Judge Andrew Napolitano put it). “Porn or grope” gives airline customers a “choice” between a privacy-invading body scanner that shows an image of your child naked to a government employee and could also give them cancer, versus a physically invasive pat-down.
     Were it not for their supposed legality, these pat-downs would be considered clear-cut examples of mass grooming of children (i.e., mass coaxing of children into accepting unwanted touching). The argument against ending this practice is the notion that terrorists will start strapping bombs to children because they know their children will not be searched, but those fears are unjustified because such a thing has never happened once in American history. The purpose of patting-down adults and children alike, is not just to instill in us a sense of safety; it is to lure us into a false sense of security. We know from tests that the T.S.A. fails to intercept 95% of bombs, so we can only conclude that sexual humiliation and submission are the goals of these procedures. Subjecting our children to them serves to inculcate whole generations of children into accepting unwanted touching near their groins from the day they begin using airplanes to travel.





     2. The use of zero-tolerance drug policies to excuse the arrest and detention of children

- Banning of getting drugs planted, touching drugs even if you say no after, and banning markers due to sniffing, as excuses to arrest kids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyPe3_boqgE



     3. The use of the fact that students disrobe in locker rooms to excuse strip searches of minor students
- 58:04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyPe3_boqgE : changing clothes in gym is excuse to allow strip searches of children (by Breyer)






     4. The police use of "bait trucks" to lure teenagers and poor people into stealing, to excuse their arrest



- Norfolk Southern:https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17676818/norfolk-southern-apologizes-for-bait-truck-in-poor-chicago-neighborhood-englewood
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661240/video-chicago-police-bait-truck-nike-norfolk-southern-apology-englewood-black-neighborhoodhttp://www.instagram.com/p/B9kVHiCJ5Gv/?igshid=1gyw7l32306br




     5. The sale of teenage delinquents to for-profit prisons by American judges



Pennsylvania judge convicted of selling teen delinquents to for-profit prisons
- school to prison pipeline



     6. The use of "trash TV" shows, and federal law, in the 1990s, to promote boot camps as supposedly less abusive alternatives to prison




Joe Biden's, and 1990s trash TV show hosts', efforts to promote boot camps as solution to teen delinquency, including as a supposedly less abusive alternative to prison (see WWASPS; boot camps are often no less abusive than prisons, and often more abusive)





     7. The legal abduction of migrant children by I.C.E. agents at the border

     Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) officials have snatched children from their mothers' arms, an act which would be considered kidnapping if it were not being done in order to further the goals of law enforcement.
     I.C.E. abducts these children on the premise that they can't be sure that the children are related to the adults accompanying them, as opposed to the children being victims of trafficking. This is false more often than it is true, as even when the child is not related to the accompanying adult, the child may have been adopted by the adult before or during their journey to America.
     This is the modern equivalent of Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels's claim, from the 1934 Nuremberg rally, that, during World War I, the enemies of Germany accused Germany of doing what they themselves were doing. Another justification for this practice is that the threat of taking children away is thought to deter people from making the journey to America.
     During the administration of Donald Trump, migrant parents were told by I.C.E. officials that they were taking their children away from them in order to give them baths, only to discover that their children weren't going to be returned to them. This is remarkably similar to the manner in which the Nazis used the promise of showers to lure Jewish prisoners into gas chambers.




8. The legalized hitting of children due to lax standards set by C.P.S.
     According to Child Protective Services, hitting a child will not be considered maltreatment unless it causes bruises or other physical symptoms which persist for longer than 24 hours. This is tantamount to enforcing a law that says it is acceptable to hit a child as long as you don't leave any physical evidence.
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805039/ (see footnote #50 and search for “bruise”)












10. Schools' deprivations of parents' rights and students' privacy during field trips

     Some time between 2005 and 2010, a public school in Florida organized a field trip, and declined to notify how they would be keeping track of the students during the trip. The school failed to notify parents that the school would be taking pictures of their eyes; that is, retinal scans.
     This may seem innocuous and innocent enough, to the untrained (ahem) eye. But there are several religious traditions whose members have moral objections to being photographed. Native Americans, for example, and the Amish, among others. Some Orthodox Jewish people have a particular distaste for allowing their children to be photographed.
     The potential religious objections aside, collecting the biometric information of school students - especially without their parents' knowledge or consent - should be especially frightening to anyone who knows a lick about American history. The education system is heavily influenced by the Ford Foundation, founded by American automobile entrepreneur Henry Ford, who was known to have Nazi sympathies. Moreover, the collection of personal information, which was done to Jews in Germany in order to round them up and kill them, was made possible only by the technology utilized by I.B.M. (International Business Machines). That is why the collection of children's personal biometric information - whether it's scans of their retinas, or information about what kind of earlobes they have (because Nazis cared about that for some reason) - should never be done without both parental notification, and parental education about the history of Nazi influence on American education.
     No adult ought to know what a child's eyes look like, better than the child's own parents do. Retinal scanning of children, and other invasive forms of documenting their personal attributes for the sake of keeping track of them and "keeping them safe", only stands to accustom school children to being photographed by adults whom they don't know well, and accustom them to being tracked by strangers who are resorting to extremely unnecessary, and invasive, levels of security, in order to keep track of children during field trips.
     Whatever happened to "the buddy system"? At least when children are kept track of by other children, there's no possibility for adult-child sexual activity.



11. The calculation of states' disbursements to public schools based on attendance turns schools into prisons

     In nearly half of U.S. states, schools allocate funding to schools based on either Average Daily Attendance (A.D.A.) or Average Daily Membership (A.D.M.). "Membership" is the official term for enrollment. State-provided funds are divided by the number of students enrolled in public schools statewide. Those funds are then divided among the state's school districts, based on each district's projection of the number of students who will actually attend classes.
     Recently, this practice prompted one user of social media, who attends school in California, to create what has since become a "text meme". This high school student explained that a member of his school's staff "joked" that students should come to school as often as they can, even when they are sick. The official said that sick students should show up, be counted in attendance, and then go home to recuperate.
     This practice risks exposing sick children to unnecessary travel, exposing healthy students to communicable diseases, and reducing schools to the level of prisons which get paid according to their head count. The more states that choose to determine school funding based on A.D.A. and A.D.M., the more complete the transformation of schools into prisons - overcrowded, disease-ridden prisons - will be.
http://www.quora.com/Are-all-U-S-public-schools-funded-based-on-attendance-as-is-the-case-in-California-schools
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jun/27/chronically-absent-students-cost-county-schools-mi/
http://www.quora.com/Do-schools-get-money-based-on-attendance





12. The genocidal separation of children from parents, which is called "compulsory education"
     According to Article 26 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted in 1948), "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. [emphasis mine] Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

     "Everyone has the right to education" sounds great, doesn't it? And "education shall be free" sounds even better (as long as nobody's forced to pay for it). But "Elementary education shall be compulsory"?
     "Elementary education" is the only thing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says should be "compulsory". In fact, Article 20 of the same document says that "No one may be compelled to belong to an association." Well excuse me, but isn't a public school an association? Isn't it compelling children to belong to public school associations, to describe their elementary education as "compulsory"?
     As if it weren't obvious enough yet that compulsory education is a scam designed to traffic children into the hands of government employees, public officials such as Kamala Harris have threatened to jail the parents of truant students. That is forcible transfer of children from their parents to the schools.
     Moreover, in the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted in 1948, the same year as the Human Rights Declaration), genocide is defined as any one of many acts; not just deliberate attempts to mass-exterminate people. Genocide, as defined by the U.N., includes (but is not limited to) "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (where "the" denotes "a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group").
     What this means is that the same year that the United Nations declared compulsory education to be a universal human right, it also arguably declared compulsory education to be a form of genocide. Which implies that the U.N. believes that all peoples and groups are entitled to genocide. The United Nations are effectively saying that all peoples and groups the world over, have a universal human right to be forcibly taxed, in order to fund the transfer of their children to government employees with the threat of jail time if they refuse to comply (but it's OK because the forcible taxation allows elementary education to be free at the point of sale).
     The U.N. has thus shown that it has no business whatsoever determining what is and is not a universal human right.
     http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
     http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf


13. The molestation of children in public schools

     Twenty-four American public school students are molested every school day in America (assuming 175 school days per year). This figure includes all reported molestation, sexual abuse, and sexual assault, by teachers and fellow students combined, from the years 2011 through 2015.
     According to an estimate by Hofstra University scholar Charol Shakeshaft, 290,000 students had experienced some form of sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000 (which works out to 184 molestations per school day, assuming 175 school days per year).
     One American public school student per school day suffers injury or death at the hands of a gunman. If the argument “If it will save the life of even one child, it will be worth it”, can convince people that gun control is necessary to prevent gun violence and protect children, then a similar argument ought to work for convincing parents to withdraw their children from public schools. Every day that students organize nationwide to skip a whole day of school, is another day that 24 kids won't get molested at school. And that goes whether they are skipping school to protest the climate, or to protest what they should really be protesting instead, which is their own mass enslavement by our corrupt government.


     14. The taxpayer funding of legal defense expenses for teachers accused of molestation

     The legal fees of public school teachers charged with molesting students, are always paid for by taxpayer money one way or another. This is because all of public school teachers' money comes from taxpayer money, and the only common alternative to those teachers hiring private attorneys, is accepting representation from their teachers' union. Those unions are funded by employee contributions, and those employees' money comes from the government. The taxpayers will thus not be free from preventing their money from being used to defend teachers charged with molesting students, until they find legislators and lobbyists who will lobby for an end to taxing people who do not consent that their money be used for such purposes.


     15. Teachers' access to students, and students' access to contraceptives
     Many people who support both public education and the legality of abortion, want high school students to have easy access to condoms, morning-after pills, and other forms of contraceptives and abortificants.
     Granted, any high school student who decides to become sexually active, should have access to such things. But the only kind of high schooler who can make such a "decision" to become sexually active, is someone whom is capable of making an informed decision; of giving informed consent. Only the oldest and most mature high schoolers are capable of deciding to become sexually active, because only the oldest and most mature high schoolers know about all the potential consequences - negative and positive - of sex.
     If mature upperclassmen have access to contraception at high schools, then that is all well and good. But perhaps younger teens who seek contraceptives, and abortions, should have their parents notified (except, of course, in cases in which their father or stepfather is the one who knocked them up, which would only turn a parental notification requirement into a danger to the child).
     Don't get me wrong; there are sex-positive people who support our public schools, and support easy access to contraceptives in schools, because they want women (women being the operative word) to be able to control their bodies. However, teenage girls, of the underclassmen ages in high school, are not women, and cannot consent to sex (nor can teenage boys of the same age).
     Moreover, there are other kinds of people who want contraceptives readily available in schools, besides pro-choicers who love teachers. Male teachers who want to have sex with teenage girl students have plenty of incentive to make sure that the school nurse's office is stocked with everything his "girlfriend" needs to "get rid of our little problem". Male teachers who molest teen girls and risk impregnating them, have every reason to make sure that the tools necessary to "cover up the evidence" are close by, and to make sure that the girl is independent enough to obtain them without any other adult finding out.
     Legal promises that public high schools will be stocked with easily accessible contraception - even for students not yet mature enough to handle sex, or understand when their relationship with an adult has become inappropriate - are, thus, a federally created insurance fraud program that subsidizes the molestation and impregnation of teenage girls by male teachers at public high schools.
     Easy access to contraceptives at high schools, does not teach students to have sex responsibly. It's not that teaching chastity or "abstinence-based" education is superior to teaching sex positivity and teaching about contraceptives; both abstinence and contraception need to be taught, and students need to be aware of the effectiveness of each. Abstinence does have a 100% effectiveness rate; but only if it's actually practiced consistently. Having sex is not a "failure" of abstinence education; to have sex is to stop practicing abstinence. Thus, no pregnancy can be blamed on abstinence, nor on its failure, since abstinence does not cause pregnancy. Abstinence-only sex education is what has been linked to increases in teen pregnancies; not education about abstinence alongside other methods of contraception. If adults can't accept these facts, then what chance do our teenagers have of ever learning this information in school?
     Easy access to contraception gives teachers the tools they need to help convince, or even intimidate, girls they molested into getting morning-after pills or abortions. Federally funded contraceptives in high schools, for all students who want them, is therefore federal student-raping insurance.




16. Government attempts to refuse to grant diplomas to students unless they get hired, continue their education, or enlist in the military

- Rahm Emanuel



     17. The recruitment of young adults into the military where they can't sue for rape
Military recruiters and supporters of drafting women, lure 18-year-old women into the military, where they can't sue the military for rape due to long and frequently changing contracts and also due to sovereign immunity

also the draft itself





18. The Violence Against Women Act functions as a rape and domestic abuse insurance program
     Consider the fact that the 1994 Brady Bill took guns away from Americans; including America's single mothers. Later in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act was passed, as part of the Clinton omnibus crime bill. The Violence Against Women Act promised that federal funds would be made available to women who became victims of domestic abuse. This is a perfect example of government "breaking your leg and then giving you crutches"; the same federal government that disarmed single mothers against their abusive husbands, also promised that some prosecutors would get paid every time an abusive man goes back to his ex-wife and mops the floor with her.
     The Violence Against Women Act is aptly named, because it does precisely that: it removes the barriers which prevent violence against women (by confiscating guns), and it promises more violence to women, through repeated abuses, by essentially promising to compensate the woman for the takings of her guns, by creating a federal insurance fraud program that subsidizes rape and wife-beating.
     Until the Brady Act and other federal gun control legislation is repealed, the Violence Against Women Act will function as nothing more than federal rape and wife-beating insurance.



19. The refusal of courts to remove children from the custody of abusive parents simply because they are actively trying to remain a part of the children's lives
     About half of U.S. states lack laws which make it difficult for parents who have abused their children, to retain custody. According to a March 2018 article from Pacific Standard, "family court may not consider the history of abuse relevant when awarding custody. It's common practice for family courts to preach that both parents should be in the picture for the [']best interest of the child.[']" The article also explains that abusive parents use custody battles to manipulate their ex-spouses - often traumatizing their children in the process - to a remarkable 70% success rate.
    http://psmag.com/social-justice/abuse-survivors-custody-battl




 20. The subjugation of American children to debt slavery through the Social Security System
     Social Security, and privatization schemes thereof, are used to securitize the debt of ourselves and our children.
     This is done in order to make that debt saleable on the international markets; that is, the markets for the purchase and refinancing of debt, and the markets for debt collateralization and government loans. Our unbalanced budgets, and lack of monetary and fiscal solvency and responsibility, have caused us and our children to become debt slaves.
     Because the government promises to repay its creditors, it intends to tax enough wealth from the next generation to make those payments. Unless and until we balance budgets (and then pass numerous surplus budgets), switch from fractional-reserve to full-reserve banking, and find something to tax which will be more efficient and less detrimental to productivity, our futures and our children's futures will be owned by private European bankers and/or Chinese investors whom our families will never meet.
     To learn more about this topic, research the sale of MuniBonds to European banks (this occurred some time between 2007 and 2011).



21. The splitting-up of families by the child support system (Social Security Title IV-D)

      Social Security Title IV-D pays states to go after fathers for child support money. Every time the state forces a "deadbeat dad", or an unfairly charged father contesting his loss of custody, the state receives federal funding. The State of Illinois receives federal funds for requiring child support payments, at a rate which is approximately 50% higher than the rates of the other states in the union.
     This turns the states - and especially the State of Illinois - into tools, to enforce federal laws on the federal government's behalf. These laws should not exist because they are not constitutional, as there is no specific enumerated authority for Congress to legislate on matters pertaining to child custody, nor retirement.
     The fact that the states get paid every time they successfully prosecute and incarcerate someone - whether they are guilty or not - adds to this mess (and also might help explain those high criminal recidivism rates).
     The states' avarice, and lack of concern for the freedom and custody retention of unfairly charged fathers, have resulted in a situation in which the states, in effect, routinely blackmail fathers, and charge them money for both the endless piles of legal documents they will have to file during custody hearings, as well as money for the very right to see their own biological children.
22. The splitting-up of families by family law courts

     In several states, including Illinois, family law courts have been known to unduly intervene in custody arrangements. Oftentimes they unfairly assume that the father is the person at fault, even when neither parent is really at fault, no serious child abuse can be proven and 50%-50% custody is the most desirable outcome for all parties involved.
     When 50%-50% equal custody is not presumed as the standard (when no child abuse is alleged), parents unduly deprived of custody become subject to needlessly-imposed difficulties in justifying retaining custody of their children. It is ridiculous to claim that you have the means and the time to take care of your own biological children, when all of your time and money is consumed in hiring attorneys, filing motions, and showing up for court appearances.
     The courts know this and they don't care. They want your children.
23. The abuse of adoption laws to justify taking biological children into custody

     In 2018, video emerged of a family court proceeding in California, in which an Asian-American female attorney found herself in an argument with a judge, after attempting to cite custody law which pertained to foster children, in order to excuse the State of California's taking of children away from their biological parents.
     Fortunately, the judge pointed out the attorney's error, and did not allow her argument to stand. However, in California as well as in other states, we should always be concerned that this line of reasoning could begin to be taken seriously in family court rooms.


      24. The occasional refusal to remove a molested child from a home, or sentence child molesters to prison, on the grounds that the abuser is the biological parent of the child, is the child's caregiver and supports the child financially, has gone through treatment, and/or "wouldn't fare well in prison"

     Sometimes, judges allow parents who have molested their children, to retain custody, and/or avoid prison time, because of absurd lines of logic such as those listed above.
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not have his children taken away from him, because he is the child's biological parent, is to suggest that parenting a child allows you to rape them. It is to suggest that a child's duty to obey his parents extends to allowing them to molest or even rape them.
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not have his children taken away from him, because he provides financial support and care for the child, is to suggest that a parent need only pay for the privilege of raping or molesting his child; whether it's through money and gifts, or whether it's through a legal settlement.
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not go to prison, because he has gone through treatment, is to suggest that all a parent need to do in order to get away with raping or molesting his child, is read some pamphlets and maybe lie to a therapist a few times. It is to suggest that people who have actually raped children already, could be helped just as much by therapy, as could people who possess child pornography and haven't yet physically harmed any children (a class of offenders which is normally thought to be much more likely to benefit from treatment than people who have already committed direct sexual acts upon children).
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not go to prison, because he "wouldn't fare well in prison" is to suggest that all a parent need to do, in order to avoid the harsh prison sentence which he deserves, is pretend to be, and act like, "a nice guy" who's polite, meek, timid, or submissive, or makes himself small, or ingratiates himself to everyone during the legal proceedings. It is to let narcissistic, sociopathic child molesters do what narcissists do best: put on the face of a nice, polite person, in order to get away with committing the emotional and psychological equivalent of murder, against children and their innocence.

     http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/03/du-pont-heir-gets-probation-for-raping-3-year-old-daughter


25. The death of children following placement in foster care by family services departments

      In 2015, Tammi diStefano reported that 570 children had died after being placed in foster care by the California Department of Children and Family Services (D.C.F.S.). Although diStefano made an error in reporting the dates during which these deaths took place, and neglected to mention that nearly half of the children who died had no previous connection to D.C.F.S. and merely had their deaths reported to that agency, it is true that 268 children died after being removed from their homes and placed in foster care by D.C.F.S., over the eighteen-month period of June 2010 to December 2011. That works out to one child, every other day, dying after being removed from their homes and placed in foster care, in the State of California.

     http://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/3470949-fake-news-570-children-taken-from-parents-and-placed-in-foster-care-in-los-angeles-not-murdered-in-2013.html







26. The normalization of kidnapping, through phony "kidnappings" of high school students, by other students, as part of birthday celebrations
     From 2001 to 2005, I attended Lake Forest High School in Lake Forest, Illinois. During the last few years of high school, I discovered that some students at my school had begun celebrating each other's birthdays by "kidnapping" them from their homes around sunrise, as a prank. The birthday boy's friends would get approval from the boy's mother, go into the boy's room while he slept, and then snatch him from his bed by surprise, and take him out for breakfast or whatever they decided to do together.
     Despite the fact that this "kidnapping" was done with the consent of the parents, this is not a socially nor emotionally healthy practice in which children should be engaging. That's because this phony "kidnapping" risks normalizing actual kidnapping. By de-stigmatizing kidnapping in this way, this phony "kidnapping" pastime risks desensitizing us towards kidnapping.
     Real kidnapping typically involves child rape, and often murder as well. No decent parent ought to allow his children to participate in anything which is referred to as kidnapping. The more you let people "kidnap" you for fun, the harder it's going to be to tell the difference between when someone uses the word "kidnap" in jest, or whether they're serious. If you get too used to getting "kidnapped", then the next person who does it might actually kidnap you.




     27. The lack of an 18-year age of consent law
     Contrary to popular belief, "the age of consent" is not 18. That is to say that the federal or national minimum age of consent to sex is not 18. States set that age at either 16, 17, or 18. The most common state age of consent is 16; as 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have chosen 16 as the age of sexual consent.
     There is no 18-year federal age of consent, but there is such a thing as a "generic age of consent" at the national level, which is set at 16 years old. That generic 16-year age of consent is set up in 18 U.S. Code Section 2243. That law was written in 2011 and passed in 2012, more than a decade after Hawaii became the last state to increase its age of consent to 16.



     28. The legalized use of the "I thought she was older" defense in statutory rape cases

     The section of federal law which deals with "Sexual abuse of a minor or ward" is 18 U.S. Code Section 2243. Within that section, subsection (c) lists the defenses acceptable for pleading not guilty to that crime.
     According to subsection (c): "(1) In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years."
     Subsection (a) refers to the crime of sexual abuse of a minor, where under federal jurisdiction, by a person who "knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who- (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so...".
     What this means is essentially that it has been codified into law that "I thought she was 16" is an acceptable defense for sexually abusing or even raping a child; that is, as long as the child is at least twelve years old, and as long as the accused person can prove he "reasonably" believed the victim to have been over 16 years old at the time.
     The federal law concerning sexual abuse of a minor or ward, teaches rapists that it's OK to rape 12-year-olds as long as they maintain that they thought the child was over 16, and as long as they keep talking about and focusing on whatever details may have led them to believe that the child was of age. The effect of this law is that rapists are allowed to get away with raping children, by focusing on how it was really the child who was at fault, because she lied about her age. This law turns child victims into criminals, and helps rapists portray themselves as victims of fraud.





     29. The decriminalized interstate trafficking of 12-to-16-year-olds by people less than 4 years older,
   and

     30. The invalidation of twenty states' age of consent laws, as the result of Quintana-Esquivel v. Sessions



- 20 state age of consent laws invalidated by Quintana



- Trafficking of 12 to 16 year old by person less than four years older: Federal government won't punish because of age of consent law, and it's out of states' hands because it's interstate trafficking.



      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243
     http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-54






     31. The legality of marrying minors, with the consent of a judge and/or a parent, in ten states

 - in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions

- due to state laws (see folder)

- 10 states still allow people to marry minors with judges' and/or parents' consent; also TX child marriage epidemic

      http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-54








     32. The refusal to give serious sentences to police officers accused of statutory rape and child molestation


Cops get away with dating teenagers, see large document and use as link
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1755&context=nlj

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/elburn-police-officer-charged-21-counts-sexual-assault-child-payroll/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/18/police-officer-among-16-men-charged-with-child-sexual-abuse-in-halifax

http://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/11/20/cop-stalls-his-child-sex-abuse-trial-claiming-dying/2574771001/

http://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-in-cuffs/nypd-cop-convicted-of-raping-13-year-old-girl-KQJjqs6uWkyOKmE0R65-tg

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-city-cop-spending-263-years-prison-rape/story?id=38517467

http://texaspolicenews.com/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&category=News+1-2&newsletterid=67176&menugroup=Home

http://blackmainstreet.net/school-cop-received-oral-sex-child-wont-register-sex-offender/

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/prosecutors-louisiana-cop-forced-7-year-old-girl-to-perform/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-louisiana-deputy-forced-mother-perform-oral-sex-infant-son-20190608-3cuvo33yvngejertfb246f63ia-story.html

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-cop-convicted-of-raping-child-after-super-bowl-party-1.591495

http://www.wbrz.com/news/breaking-news-one-year-old-raped-iberville-deputy-accused-of-filming-it/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Holtzclaw




     33. The continued service, in Congress, of lawmakers whom have been charged with "underage prostitution" or child sex trafficking scandals, or have been caught on tape molesting children


Biden pinched nipple of 8-year-old girl on C-SPAN

Menendez, New Jersey Senator, “underage prostitute” in Colombia


Epstein sex scandal unresolved; includes business people (Wexner, Gates, etc.) but also politicos: Trump, Clintons, Bloomberg, Richardson, A Acosta, George Mitchell, Sandy Berger. And fact that both Clintons involved with Epstein probably means Podesta guilty of child sexual assault as charged; Podesta worked with both Clintons
     34. The use of the monetary system and financial pressure to coerce adults into accepting putting their children to work

- dollar (lure into prostitution)
Money / artificial poverty; manipulating and controlling people into needing money (include capuchin study in links)
normalization of prostitution in high schools in UK (Dennis Parsons)





     35. The possibility that the BAR Association (attorneys' union) is a syndicate of homosexual rapists and child molesters whom are covering-up each other's sex crimes

Alex Jones: BAR Association criminal sex crime coverup syndicate / cover for each other, GALs










Originally Published (incomplete) on February 28th, 2020

Edited and Expanded Between February 28th and March 7th, 2020

Edited and Expanded between March 10th and 13th, 2020
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 8, 2014

The Transportation Security Administration

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



9. Will you support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration and place airport security back into private hands?

     Yes, I will support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration, and support legislation to transition the T.S.A.'s administration to non-public hands, including private hands.
     I will urge commercial airports to apply to the T.S.A.'s Screening Partnership Program in order to transition to private screening while maintaining T.S.A. oversight. Also, I will sponsor constitutional amendments to strengthen the 4th Amendment, and legislation to prohibit any and all activities of the T.S.A. and its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (V.I.P.R.) teams which violate the civil liberties enumerated therein. I will also oppose efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the T.S.A. to additional and new forms of transportation.
      I will additionally support legislation to transition the responsibility to collect funds and to provide for the administration of transportation security at the state and local levels of government, as well as to private hands. Local and market-based alternatives should be free to compete against the federal government to provide better transportation security services – and policy thereof - leaving consumers and taxpayers more free to convey their preferences about local airports' security measures.
      It is for this reason that I will support legislation to introduce even more alternatives to private and local authority, including egalitarian enterprises and non-governmental and quasi-governmental entities. I will sponsor amendments to T.S.A. legislation providing for the options of transitioning of the administration of transportation security to a wider set of alternatives than simply public governmental departments and bureaus, private enterprises, or public-private partnerships; namely, worker-consumer-cooperatives, social purpose enterprises, and non-ministerial quasi-governmental departments.



For more entries on homeland security and terrorism, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Response to Campaign for Liberty Federal Candidate Questionnaire

2014 Response to the Campaign for Liberty's
2012 Survey Questionnaire for Federal Candidates from Oregon

by Joseph W. Kopsick,
Candidate, treasurer, and custodian of records at the Committee to Elect Joe Kopsick
Written between April 22nd and May 1st, 2014





SYNOPSIS

     I would respond in the affirmative to each of the questions asked in this survey, except question #8, because I would not at this time be willing to support a complete withdrawal from the United Nations Organization, although I would support efforts to drastically scale back the involvement of the United States with the U.N..



1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 459/S. 202 in the 112th Congress)?

     Yes, I will cosponsor and call for roll call votes on legislation providing for annual audits of the Federal Reserve System, including legislation similar to bills proposed by Ron Paul while in Congress.



2. Will you support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage?

     Yes, I will support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage. No currency, whether made of precious metal or paper, should be subject to taxation; this can only serve to erode its value and discourage savings.



3. Will you vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms?

     Yes, I will vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms. Such legislation would violate the 2nd Amendment, and the power to prohibit firearms is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as an authority given to the federal government by the states and the people thereof.



4. Will you support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements?

     Yes, I will support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements. I will support efforts to immediately cap total federal spending at between 15% and 16%, and thereafter I will sponsor legislation to lower this limit to 12.5% of G.D.P..



5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?

     Yes, I will support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command. The United Nations is just one of many frameworks for multilateral coordination of military efforts among nations. I will support legislation to scale back and eliminate all U.S. military coordination with the United Nations, and service of U.S. troops under the U.N..



6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?

     Yes, I support and will vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment. I fully support the rights of states to nullify and interpose unconstitutional federal laws; to enjoin federal authorities against enforcing such laws; and to exercise Article 5 powers.



7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

     Yes, I will oppose the Card Check bill (i.e., legislation supporting majority sign-up), as well as the Employee Free Choice Act, as well as all other legislation designed to empower union bosses.



8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

     No; although I support demilitarization of the United Nations, and will support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command, I am not at this time willing to support total withdrawal from the United Nations.



9. Will you support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration and place airport security back into private hands?

     Yes, I will support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration, and support legislation to transition the T.S.A.'s administration to non-public hands, including private hands.




10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

     Yes, I will oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war. Although the War Powers Act authorizes the president to deploy limited numbers of troops for limited times, the president cannot authorize attacks or strikes without the approval of the American people through Congress, unless there is imminent danger to the United States.



11. Will you support legislation that will repeal ObamaCare, including H.R. 1101, the End the Mandate Act?

     Yes, I will support legislation that will repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (ObamaCare), including the End the Mandate Act and legislation similar to it.



12. Will you oppose so-called “Cap and Trade” legislation?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed federal “Cap and Trade” legislation. I will oppose all federal legislation to regulate carbon emissions and carbon offset exchanges – and the environment in general – in the United States (outside of the District of Columbia and the overseas territories) without a constitutional amendment authorizing such regulation.


13. Will you support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to the NDAA of 2012, which would prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens and would ensure full Fifth Amendment rights to due process?

     Yes, I will support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces - under Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, and pursuant to a 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force – from detaining persons suspected of terrorism indefinitely and without legal representation.



14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

     Yes, I will vote against any and all proposed budgets that would increase the nation's debt, and in times when no annual budget is passed, I will also vote against large omnibus spending bills. The people of the United States do not need a federal government spending a quarter of the wealth produced in the nation annually. The 21% of GDP spent under the 2013 Budget is an improvement over this, but more work has yet to be done.



15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose PATRIOT Act renewal that includes such items?

     Yes, I will oppose roving wiretaps and warrantless searches by the federal government; and vote to repeal the PATRIOT Act, to oppose its renewal and similar legislation.



16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?

     Yes, I will oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program. I will vote to repeal the portion of the REAL ID Act of 2005 which established and implemented regulations for the security standards of driver's licenses and identification documents.



17. Will you vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants?

     Yes, I will vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded federal benefits for undocumented immigrants. Although race discrimination in employment practices and the eVerify program are, undeniably, obstacles to undocumented immigrants obtaining the means of survival and a decent standard of living, there are additional obstacles; namely, the increasing monopolization of the public sector over the distribution of welfare services.
     Government departments and bureaus which prohibit the private sector and the non-profit voluntary sector from competing to provide welfare services deny people who entered this country through illegal methods the ability to obtain their needs through earning money and paying for those goods and services with cash or credit, and through receiving voluntary mutual aid given interpersonally and via charitable organizations.



18. Will you support keeping our Internet free from government control and intrusion, including opposing power grabs like SOPA, CISPA, or any bill that mandates more government intervention in the internet?

     Yes, I will support keeping the Internet free from federal government intrusion, including opposing power graps like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and any bill that mandates more government intervention in the internet.



19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed all federal legislation which provides for tax increases. For government to control 40% of the spending in the nation – and for the federal government to control over 25% of the GDP (as was the case just several years ago) – is unsustainable. I believe that 15% is a more appropriate goal in the short term, and that 12.5% (one-eighth of G.D.P.; in today's terms $2.1 trillion out of a $16.8 trillion G.D.P.) is an appropriate long-term goal.



20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
- Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut
- Capital Gains Tax Cut
- Business Tax Cut
- Estate Tax Cut

     I will vote for all of the above mentioned tax cuts.
     I will support abolishing general income taxes gradually (but not before enacting a temporary negative income tax) while keeping the capital gains, business dividends, estate, and gift taxes; for as long as are necessary to balance the budget and pay off the nation's debt. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment which would repeal the 16th Amendment and provide for the federal government to tax capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gifts, but not personal income in a general manner.
     I will vote to lower all federal income taxes to 15% - and then, as soon as possible, to 12.5% - for all income earners living above the poverty line. I will also vote for capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gift tax cuts, because they are all duplicative taxes; taxes on the savings of and transactions in wealth which has already been taxed generally as personal income.





FULL EXPLANATION OF MY POSITIONS



1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 459/S. 202 in the 112th Congress)?

     Yes, I will cosponsor and call for roll call votes on legislation providing for annual audits of the Federal Reserve System, including legislation similar to bills proposed by Ron Paul while in Congress.
     Any agency of the federal government, no matter how supposedly “independent”, should always be subject to congressional oversight.



2. Will you support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage?

     Yes, I will support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage. No currency, whether made of precious metal or paper, should be subject to taxation; this can only serve to erode its value and discourage savings. Additionally, I support the eventual abolition of capital gains and sales taxes altogether.



3. Will you vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms?

     Yes, I will vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms. Such legislation would violate the 2nd Amendment, and the power to prohibit firearms is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as an authority given to the federal government by the states and the people thereof.
     Federal legislation concerning weapons would only be constitutionally permissible through use of the amendment process or in a constitutional convention. However, I will not support any efforts to prohibit nor interfere with the sale, use, or carrying of firearms.
     Instead, I will sponsor amendments clarifying, strengthening, and expanding the 2nd Amendment to what James Madison originally wanted; to allow “religious scrupulousness of bearing arms” as justification for conscientious objection to bearing arms as part of service in a militia.



4. Will you support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements?

     Yes, I will support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements. I will support efforts to immediately cap total federal spending at between 15% and 16%, and thereafter I will sponsor legislation to lower this limit to 12.5% of G.D.P..



5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?

     Yes, I will support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command. The United Nations is just one of many frameworks for multilateral coordination of military efforts among nations. I will support legislation to scale back and eliminate all U.S. military coordination with the United Nations, and service of U.S. troops under the U.N..
     We cannot allow the five nations of the U.N. Security Council to send nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the Eastern Mediterranean without the permission and awareness of the taxpaying people within those nations. Nor can we continue to tolerate an overly militarized United Nations that functions as little more than a joint tyranny wielded by five nuclear-powered nations over the developing, impoverished, and less sufficiently armed nations of the world.
     The United States can and should continue to co-exist with the United Nations, on the conditions that U.S. troops do not serve under the command of the U.N., that the organization remains an optional framework for international law and multilateral diplomacy and military coordination, and that the organization become demilitarized.



6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?

     Yes, I support and will vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment.
     The federal government has broken its constitutional agreement with the states to exercise the Enumerated Powers. Overly broad and sweeping interpretations and applications of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Interstate Commerce Clause have all contributed to the justification of federal intervention in economic and civic life in the states.
     So too have executive orders which authorized – under the otherwise constitutional presidential power to re-organize the cabinet - the “reorganization” of entire industries, and sectors of industrial relations and of the economy, under the federal government's jurisdiction (as represented in the cabinet and in cabinet-level agencies), without the approval of Congress.
     Furthermore, the federal government has broken its agreement to only exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the nation's overseas territories, and over the lands and policy matters explicitly granted to it by the states in Article I, Section 8. The federal government's ownership of vast land areas within the states impedes the ability of each state to tax the unimproved value of land as fully as it finds necessary in order to afford to be in a financial relationship with the federal government.
     I fully support the rights of states to nullify and interpose unconstitutional federal laws; to enjoin federal authorities against enforcing such laws; and to exercise Article 5 powers. I believe that more Americans would support the rights of states if they knew that during the Civil War, the State of Wisconsin nullified federal legislation to return freed slaves to their former masters.



7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

     Yes, I will oppose the Card Check bill (i.e., legislation supporting majority sign-up), as well as the Employee Free Choice Act, as well as all other legislation designed to empower union bosses.
     The exclusive authority to regulate organized labor occurring in the states is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The federal government should only have the exclusive authority to regulate labor which occurs in the District of Columbia and in the nation's overseas possessions, and labor in industries over which the federal government exercises duly delegated constitutional authorities to regulate. I would sponsor efforts to return the power to regulate and enforce all other areas of labor policy to the states - and to the people, the labor departments and bureaus, and the local governments within them - as soon as possible.
     I believe that all federal legislation aiming to protect the so-called rights of unions and employers alike is specific legislation affording a special privilege; the General Welfare Clause was included in the Constitution in order to prohibit legislation which does not promote the welfare of all of the people equally. Special legislation concerning unions, enterprises, business associations, and lobbyists and political action committees from both sides of the aisle has only served to empower all of these organizations to participate in the regulation and control of the people. This has resulted in diminished political power for ordinary taxpayers, diminished economic power for ordinary consumers, and a less productive economy.
     I oppose the Card Check bill and the Employee Free Choice Act not because it should be illegal or any more difficult to join or organize a union, nor easier for employers to fire people for engaging in legal union activity. I take this position because the taxpayers – as both the employers of federal workers and the consumers of the services they provide – have the responsibility to ensure that the power of organized labor does not make the delivery of such services unaffordable. Federal workers should bear in mind that they, too, are consumers and taxpayers, and therefore need affordable government just like the rest of us.
     Furthermore, I take this position in order to protect the rights of minorities; in this case, the rights of minority unions alongside those of majority unions. Gaining majority status for being the certified winner in a National Labor Relations Board election should not be the sole method of invoking bargaining obligations on the part of employers; plural and proportional representation would be legal alternatives if legislation requiring majority status were abolished.
     I believe that majority unions should have a role in such bargaining, but so should minority unions, as well as consumers and shareholders, and - in the case of labor by government employees – taxpayers. But agreements between these parties can be achieved through private arbitration (following mutual company and union agreement about which materially uninterested agency shall be deemed trustworthy to arbitrate the dispute) and liens on business properties, rather than through litigation and motivated state intervention concerning what sort of bargaining between companies and unions shall be acceptable.
     I do not support any organization that interferes with individual freedom to associate through federally protected concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, and to bargain collectively on a members-only basis. I take this position regardless of whether it is an employer or a union interfering with these freedoms, and regardless of whether there is an established majority union in the workplace.
     Majority unionists should understand that their desire to be the only union in the workplace only puts all of their eggs in one basket. The federal law requiring majority status vote for a union to remain in existence only exposes unions to the risk that a future federal law could empower government to require all eligible voters to weigh in on a union election at their workplace, even if they'd rather not pick a side. I believe that compulsory union voting is one of the most significant sources of political polarization and divisiveness in America today.
     As long as majority unions are free to appeal to the federal government to either abolish minority unions or diminish their power to negotiate, the prevailing union shop / closed shop dichotomy in unionized workplaces can only serve to perpetuate an environment of monopolistic competition over the representation of labor. I oppose such uses of coercive state power to enforce unconstitutional special legislation; this is activity which should be considered in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
     Unless and until it becomes politically feasible to repeal all special federal legislation empowering unions and businesses alike, I will propose amendments to the Constitution authorizing the federal government to enjoin states against giving such illegal special privileges and monopoly representation powers to majority unions (often referred to as a “national Right to Work amendment”). I take this position because in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that nobody may legally be required to become a full member of a union as a condition of continued employment.
     Although the federal government should not be in the business of telling people in the states how to regulate labor therein, in regards to my legislative position on the federal government's jurisdiction over labor (in the District of Columbia, overseas, and in industries it was duly delegated the authority to regulate) - and in regards to my general recommendations for the states – I believe that individual freedom to choose whether to join a union can coexist alongside workers desiring solidarity in collective bargaining.
     I also believe that each government, in its respective sphere of authority to regulate labor, should provide for a more collaborative negotiation between employers and non-employers from across a wider and more diverse set of economic organizations. I would suggest that this be done by prohibiting unions (especially pro-business majority unions known as “business unions”) from making contracts with employers in a manner which does not welcome the input of ordinary people. This includes the input of not only taxpayers, shareholders, and non-shareholding but nonetheless affected “stakeholders”, but most importantly of potential employees who are all too often underinformed about their rights as a result of such contracts.
     Unconstitutionally empowering the federal government to nationalize companies and then to award controlling stakes in them to the public and/or to labor unions with majority status is not the only way to ensure that everyone gets their fair share of influence over how our society and economy are governed. There is a way to passively – rather than actively and coercively – allow ownership and management responsibilities to transition into the hands of workers and consumers.
     Moreover, there is a way to do this while promoting economic growth, without crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of the people or causing people to work past their planned retirement ages unnecessarily, and without diminishing the freedoms of individual workers and minority unions to have meaningful influence on the workplace and in the industry of their choice.
      My recommendation would involve immediately closing all tax loopholes and taxing all corporate income (including capital gains) at a flat base rate, and from there offering tax credits in order to incentivize owners and managers of firms to take steps planning and providing for the gradual transition of ownership and management of such firms to organization modes which are more hospitable to egalitarianism and a balance of workers' rights with the interests of consumers.
     Firms in the public and private sectors alike would be offered tax incentives to essentially evolve into one of any number of types of organizations. Examples of such organizations should include open shop unions; dual and minority unions; workplaces with members-only collective bargaining agreements; autonomous unions and guilds; syndicates; egalitarian labor-managed firms; cooperative corporations; consumer-driven cooperatives; worker-consumer cooperatives (i.e., mutuals); mutual aid societies; cooperative wholesale societies; and voluntary cooperatives.
     I would additionally recommend a hybrid example, combining the functions of as many of these types of organizations as possible into one firm; that is, a voluntary worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperative. Such a cooperative should coordinate the planning of purchasing as tightly as possible with other cooperatives like it, and be required to serve any customer who comes to it (on the condition that he or she does not request unjustifiable quantities of the goods and services offered).
     Although coordinating their efforts would save the most money, such cooperatives should remain technically separate organizations, function in a market system, be free to accept and give charitable donations, and be free to have differing practices regarding in which circumstances additional quantities of goods and services afforded to certain individuals above the base level are justifiable.
     The main objective of such a cadre of firms would be to provide a counterbalance against the oligopoly powers of sellers and distributors of labor and capital pertaining to the relevant goods and services produced by said firms. Such firms would accomplish this by pooling wealth in order to save costs in the purchasing and delivery of the relevant goods and services, providing for the affordable organization of production.
     This would occur under the condition of regular negotiation concerning any and all potential conflict which is likely to arise between consumers' demand for low prices and workers' demand for high compensation. A worker who consumes the very good or service which he or she produces, possesses good management skills, and has constructive suggestions concerning improving the workplace, might be asked to serve as a tie-breaking vote in any leadership or management of such a firm.
     The State of Oregon can do better on labor policy without the obstructive effects of association with the federal government. The federal government's ownership of vast tracts of land in the state inhibits (in those areas) the kind of productive labor which would allow the state to afford such a relationship, if only the state had the ability to fully tax the value of the land within it, instead of resorting to taxing the production of its own taxpayers through taxes on individual income. Whether they call the compensation they desire “all the fruits” or “the full product” of their labor, I would urge people of the left and right alike to oppose the eventual abolition of the individual income tax.



8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

     No; although I support demilitarization of the United Nations, and will support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command, I am not at this time willing to support total withdrawal from the United Nations.
     However, I will not support the adoption of any international standards in manners which subverts the the national sovereignty of the United States of America. Additionally, I will support legislation to scale back and eliminate U.S. military coordination with – and service under – the United Nations.
     I do not believe that there is any urgent or pressing need to remove the U.N. headquarters from the United States, nor to end our involvement in the U.N. for domestic or diplomatic non-military purposes.
     I do not support recalling our ambassadors from the U.N.. America should utilize its presence at the United Nations Organization in order to urge Pakistan, India, and the State of Israel to join the U.N.'s nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspections by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I will support efforts to allow states to apply for U.N. membership in order to achieve this if the federal government will not do so.
     The United States can and should continue to co-exist with the United Nations, provided that it remains an optional framework for international law and multilateral diplomacy, and under the condition that the United Nations become demilitarized. The United Nations is but one of the frameworks for international law, and U.N. membership should not be compulsory upon any nation.



9. Will you support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration and place airport security back into private hands?

     Yes, I will support legislation to shut down the Transportation Security Administration, and support legislation to transition the T.S.A.'s administration to non-public hands, including private hands.
     I will urge commercial airports to apply to the T.S.A.'s Screening Partnership Program in order to transition to private screening while maintaining T.S.A. oversight. Also, I will sponsor constitutional amendments to strengthen the 4th Amendment, and legislation to prohibit any and all activities of the T.S.A. and its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (V.I.P.R.) teams which violate the civil liberties enumerated therein. I will also oppose efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the T.S.A. to additional and new forms of transportation.
      I will additionally support legislation to transition the responsibility to collect funds and to provide for the administration of transportation security at the state and local levels of government, as well as to private hands. Local and market-based alternatives should be free to compete against the federal government to provide better transportation security services – and policy thereof - leaving consumers and taxpayers more free to convey their preferences about local airports' security measures.
      It is for this reason that I will support legislation to introduce even more alternatives to private and local authority, including egalitarian enterprises and non-governmental and quasi-governmental entities. I will sponsor amendments to T.S.A. legislation providing for the options of transitioning of the administration of transportation security to a wider set of alternatives than simply public governmental departments and bureaus, private enterprises, or public-private partnerships; namely, worker-consumer-cooperatives, social purpose enterprises, and non-ministerial quasi-governmental departments.



10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

     Yes, I will oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war. Although the War Powers Act authorizes the president to deploy limited numbers of troops for limited times, the president cannot authorize attacks or strikes without the approval of the American people through Congress, unless there is imminent danger to the United States.
     The U.S. military should primarily be focused on defending the American people rather than acting in a militant manner and spending as much on so-called defense as the next 15 to 20 nations combined. Our military and intelligence forces should not intervene in the domestic affairs (including elections) of national governments unless refraining from doing so enables such a government's official apparati to inflict imminent harm upon America, and upon law-abiding American people and agencies abroad.
     Although I will to promote diplomacy, trade, and peace with all nations, I do not believe that this should involve formal military alliances, as I believe that we should heed George Washington's advice avoiding entangling alliances with foreign nations. I will support efforts to end formal military alliances with all nations, and to end U.S. membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
     I believe that our membership in N.A.T.O. - and our close relationships with the State of Israel and Saudi Arabia – only increase the chance of the United States fighting in more wars without congressional approval, and of the U.S. being expected by the international community to fight other nations' battles for them. This only diminishes the independence and military strength of such nations, while allowing them to fund their governments while the U.S. bears much of the costs of their protection.
     I will vote to cut foreign aid completely, but until that time, any foreign aid budget the federal government maintains should not reflect the kind of favoritism towards particular governments and peoples which has been suggested by the recent trends of vastly disproportionate disbursements to Israel and Egypt (which combined contain just over one percent of the world's population).
     Additionally, the U.S. military should not use drone planes to spy in other countries (either to collect information or to attack enemies of the United States) without the approval of Congress and without the authorization of the nation within whose borders and air space the use of such drones occurs.


11. Will you support legislation that will repeal ObamaCare, including H.R. 1101, the End the Mandate Act?

     Yes, I will support legislation that will repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (ObamaCare), including the End the Mandate Act and legislation similar to it. There are many reasons why the individual mandate to purchase insurance is not constitutional. It is not a tax on an activity; it is a penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. If the individual mandate were a tax, it would be an infinite percent tax on a zero-dollar item or transaction (i.e., the “act” of refraining from purchasing health insurance).
     Additionally, the exemptions that have been granted render this “mandate” not a mandate but rather a bundle of special favors; that they have been granted conflicts with the legal principle of equal protection under the law. Not only is the act of issuing a health insurance policy not commerce (as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869), refraining from purchasing health insurance does not even constitute trade.
     Without a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to be involved in the health care industry (except within the District of Columbia and the overseas territories), the federal government should have no role in regulating it. However, in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate insurance (i.e., keep it regular and uninhibited) in pursuance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in order to prevent unnatural monopolies in insurance sales.
     Given this authority, and the Obama Administration's admitted desire to work with Republicans to pass legislation that effectively drives down costs but doesn't resort to mandating purchases, I believe that there are many good reasons why the federal government should end the mandate and legalize the interstate purchase of health insurance (thus allowing insurers based in states with low average insurance costs to compete in states with high average costs).
     States might also wish to further cut insurance costs for patients by passing legislation providing for their health departments and bureaus – and health insurance cooperatives within them – to evolve into worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperatives (providing for a closer and more direct negotiation on prices and other issues between health workers and patients).
     Organizing bulk purchasing can, should, and must be done in order to cut costs and to create economies of scale powerful enough to balance the power of sellers, but when the State is more trusted and empowered to do so than the people and their enterprises through the markets, the results tend to be the exact opposite of what was intended.
     In order to improve the delivery of health insurance to people who need it (whether they are citizens or not), I will urge states to allow people to purchase real health insurance in the open marketplace, including affordable basic catastrophic accident and illness policies, and change of health status insurance. I will additionally urge states to refrain from implementing single-payer systems.
     Although it is not the federal government's business to order states to enact this or that policy on health insurance (besides requiring them to allow trade and competition across state lines), the monopsony which government single-payer systems wield derives from a special privilege to monopolistically compete in purchasing. Such states' purchase mandates act as regulatory barriers to interstate insurance purchase and sales, thereby driving costs up.
     I will support the augmentation of antitrust laws in order to apply to single-payer systems requiring universal coverage. Single-payer is also undesirable because it would require public taxpayer funds to subsidize the insurance of each and every health customer, including individuals who want expensive, dangerous, and/or medically unnecessary procedures. This would undoubtedly create nothing but more protracted budget battles and ideological in-fighting.
     I do not support any level of government taking steps towards prohibiting purchase of health insurance by agencies other than governmental entities; non-governmental alternatives must always exist, and government must not show preferences for any alternative through differential taxation. The federal government can and should close a tax loophole, by ceasing to exempt employees from paying taxes on employer-provided health insurance.
     This special favor has created financial incentives for leaving people without health insurance once they lose their jobs and become unemployed, because it is a benefit for people who stay employed, and a way to encourage them to refrain from purchasing outside plans. Although the federal government should eventually stop taxing earnings altogether, for the time being it should tax all compensation equally.



12. Will you oppose so-called “Cap and Trade” legislation?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed federal “Cap and Trade” legislation.
     I will oppose all federal legislation to regulate carbon emissions and carbon offset exchanges – and the environment in general – in the United States (outside of the District of Columbia and the overseas territories) without a constitutional amendment authorizing such regulation.
     The federal government cannot afford the $100 to $200 billion in annual spending which such a nationwide scheme would entail, nor to risk corruption through the personal and business favors which would inevitably be involved in such an expensive undertaking.
     However, I believe that climate change is an imminent threat to civilization, and I agree with the narrow majority of Americans who believe that the environment is more important than employment and the economy. This majority has communicated signals on the marketplace for environmental goods and services and policy that fossil fuel use is not an ordinary “market good” because it is a “market bad” which must be discouraged; legislators must heed these signals.
     I will encourage state and local governments to discourage pollution through enacting their own Cap and Trade type legislation, while fully taxing the unimproved value of land. This will empower governments to punish those who pollute and cause the blighting of landed property, and allow it to fall into disrepair (resulting in a loss of value) and moreover could eventually allow states to eliminate taxes on income and sales while fully funding government.
     I will support legislation providing for the regulation of carbon emissions only in areas over which the federal government has constitutionally authorized exclusive jurisdiction. I will also urge all governments of the world to achieve zero carbon emissions (which are not offset) within fifteen years, and I will urge U.S. states to become unilateral signatories to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol on pollution.


13. Will you support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to the NDAA of 2012, which would prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens and would ensure full Fifth Amendment rights to due process?

     Yes, I will support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces - under Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, and pursuant to a 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force – from detaining persons suspected of terrorism indefinitely and without legal representation.
     Neither the president nor the secretary of defense should have the authority to detain individuals – let alone indefinitely, without trial, without being allowed to meet with attorneys or family members, anywhere in the world, and for any reason - regardless of the N.D.A.A.'s requirement that the secretary of defense must certify to Congress that such a detention would be in the interest of national security. Any presidential objection to such detention legislation will only be likely to come in the form of signing statements expressing the sentiment that the president already wields this authority himself.
     Furthermore, the aforementioned sections of the 2012 N.D.A.A. are undesirable altogether because they authorize the indefinite detention of individuals suspected of directly supporting hostilities against not just the United States, but its “coalition partners”. If apprehension of foreign nations' direct enemies must occur in the U.S., it can and should be done without denying the suspect the right to a fair trial, and without denying the public the right to exert meaningful influence on how such a person (if found guilty) should be punished.
     Whether citizen or not - and whether (if guilty) they are the enemy of the U.S. or of a foreign nation – domestic terror suspects are innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be denied legal representation, nor the right to a speedy trial within the jurisdiction wherein some real crime was committed. I will support any and all efforts to strengthen the civil liberties enumerated in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution; and I will sponsor legislation augmenting the enumerated rights of the accused.


14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

     Yes, I will vote against any and all proposed budgets that would increase the nation's debt, and in times when no annual budget is passed, I will also vote against large omnibus spending bills.
     The people of the United States do not need a federal government spending a quarter of the wealth produced in the nation annually. The 21% of GDP spent under the 2013 Budget is an improvement over this, but more work has yet to be done. The costs of having a federal government would be cut immediately upon the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which two-thirds of the states now want for themselves.
     I will support efforts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I will urge all states to do the same as soon as possible. I will seriously consider supporting any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance type legislation, although I will not support any such legislation which does not go far enough towards achieving balanced budgets.
     The federal government should close all remaining tax loopholes, and reduce spending. Proposed budgets in the near future will likely need to have $600 to $700 billion trimmed from them, and $1 trillion will likely need to be cut from the White House's requested spending total. Any surpluses resulting after such cuts should go first towards paying off foreign and public debt, and then towards tax decreases.
     The attitudes that we should or can increase government spending during a recession, or set spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government programs, reflect a lack of principles about the proper role, size, and scope of government, and compound the risk that a lack of fiscal restraint will lead to unfunded liabilities, deficits, and debt.
     All of this is possible as long as the Department of Commerce, national defense (the single largest discretionary spending item), the Departments of Homeland Security and State and the intelligence programs; the medical entitlements; the Departments of Education, H.U.D., Justice, Energy, and Interior; the E.P.A., and the Departments of Transportation and Labor are considered the primary targets for spending cuts (in that order).
     This could be done without cutting Social Security, and even without completely abolishing any federal department besides the Department of Commerce. However, I believe that no progress on taxation can be made unless and until the federal government cedes all of its land back to the states and the people therein, so that states may fully tax the unimproved value of that land, instead of taxing (and effectively discouraging) productivity occurring on the land, such as sales and income earnings.



15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose PATRIOT Act renewal that includes such items?

     Yes, I will oppose roving wiretaps and warrantless searches by the federal government; and vote to repeal the PATRIOT Act, to oppose its renewal and similar legislation.
     I will criticize the PATRIOT Act on the basis of its lacking both constitutionality and transparency. Given the short duration of time which members of Congress were given to read and consider the bill, the stipulation that only those members who voted for the bill would be permitted to participate in its subsequent amendment, and the fragmented manner in which the bill was constructed – as well as the content of the bill itself - I see no reason to support the act or its renewal.
     I believe that unless danger is imminent and reasonable suspicion of violent crime is present, a wiretap or search is not permissible unless and until a judge has signed a warrant issuing authorization for such an action. Federal agents must not write their own search warrants and enter and occupy people's homes without either permission of the homeowner or a warrant signed by a judge, as did the agents of King George III during the American Revolutionary War.
     Contrary to the attitudes of supporters of the PATRIOT Act, the need to protect our 5th Amendment liberties should never be superseded by the need of law enforcement agencies to gather information quickly and efficiently, nor by the need of judges who sign such warrants to get a full eight hours of sleep at night.
     I will sponsor legislation to augment the protection of the civil liberties enumerated in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, strictly prohibiting government surveillance without cause, as well as all illegal activities of the National Security Agency's programs, in particular the PRISM data collection program.
     I will also urge states and local governments to legalize the filming of police officers and all elected and appointed public officials, and I will support increased congressional oversight of the Continuity of Operations Plan, in order to prevent the suspension of the Constitution and basic civil liberties in the event of a State of National Emergency. Additionally, I will support review and revision of which agencies the U.S. considers terrorist groups hostile to our country, in order to ensure sufficient domestic homeland security absent the politicizing effects of our military and trade policies towards other nations.



16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?

     Yes, I will oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program.
     I will vote to repeal the portion of the REAL ID Act of 2005 which established and implemented regulations for the security standards of driver's licenses and identification documents.
     I do not believe that anyone who is born in the United States or becomes a citizen should be required or expected to carry identification or travel documents on them at all times. I will not vote to support any proposed federal laws – nor urge states to adopt laws - that requires businesses to scan individuals' driver's licenses when checking their age to confirm alcohol and tobacco purchases, nor will I support laws providing for requiring travel or identification documents to contain either bar codes, computer chips, or tracking devices. If holograms and embedded ink are good enough for our money, they should be good enough for our identification documents.
     I believe that Americans would be appalled if they discovered that Native Americans are required to carry blood quantum cards due to federal law (the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934). Although tribes accepted this requirement 80 years ago, and the law allows them autonomy over determining quantum laws so as to limit benefits for descendants of Native Americans with low blood quantum, there is no reason that anyone born in the United States should be expected to carry such a document. It is the relic of a regrettable, racist era in American history, and it was not voluntary because it was one of few choices offered to a conquered and besieged people.
     I will oppose federal legislation requiring employers to participate in the e-Verify program - under the Department of Homeland Security's Basic Pilot Program – because such legislation only serves to turn businesses into police departments.
     Additionally, I will oppose federal legislation to require presentation of proof of residency and identification documents in order to vote; these effectively amount to Reconstruction-era poll taxes. I will sponsor federal legislation to abolish such legislation enacted by the states as serious civil rights violations which diminish the freedom of not only members of racial and ethnic minorities but poor and homeless people of all races.
     I believe that any and all federal mandates to purchase and/or carry identification and travel documents should only follow appropriate constitutional amendment (although in that case I will vote against my own amendment) or else invoke a financial obligation on the part of the party making the command, i.e., the pockets of members of Congress themselves.



17. Will you vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants?

     Yes, I will vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded federal benefits for undocumented immigrants.
     Although race discrimination in employment practices and the eVerify program are, undeniably, obstacles to undocumented immigrants obtaining the means of survival and a decent standard of living, there are additional obstacles; namely, the increasing monopolization of the public sector over the distribution of welfare services.
     Government departments and bureaus which prohibit the private sector and the non-profit voluntary sector from competing to provide welfare services deny people who entered this country through illegal methods the ability to obtain their needs through earning money and paying for those goods and services with cash or credit, and through receiving voluntary mutual aid given interpersonally and via charitable organizations.
     Such individuals have already been denied the legal right to work, and so – with no remaining legal alternatives - they often find themselves in need of goods and services which the government has limited the ability of non-governmental actors to provide. They cannot attempt to make use of many of such services, because they would risk revealing their immigration status to the government in order to do so, thereby risking deportation.
     When undocumented immigrants cannot either work to obtain, or receive for free, services which are typically provided by government, government overreach is to blame. If ever a government requires its citizens to present sufficient documentation of their identity whenever they needed food or water, then we would be asking whether undocumented immigrants even have the right to eat and drink - hence survive – and survival will be considered a right granted by government, to an even greater degree than it is already. But when welfare provision is not exclusively done by government, it cannot be cut by legislators who cut services in order to satisfy taxpayers.
     If the public sector continues to monopolize the provision of welfare, then when State-run markets collapse - and/or when governments become unable to sufficiently provide welfare - people's basic needs will not be met. That is, unless a thriving underground market featuring gift-giving, bartering, sharing, and trade between voluntarily cooperating individuals is permitted to function; absent price controls, purchase mandates, citizenship requirements, and barriers to participation and competition in markets.
     The federal government should neither require states to provide taxpayer-funded benefits to undocumented immigrants, nor prohibit them from doing so. I will urge states to allow such individuals to freely access and/or purchase any and all ordinary consumer goods and services – whether health services, education, or items which require minimum age for purchase – without presenting documentation or registering with a government administration.
     Additionally, I will vote to repeal the D.R.E.A.M. (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act because of the manner in which it was implemented; President Obama implemented it via an executive order after the bill had been rejected by Congress. But I also support repealing the Act because of the choices it offered undocumented immigrants as a condition of staying; to study in college or serve in the military. Most of such individuals come to the United States to work, not to study or to fight the federal government's enemies; without the option of apprenticeship in one's field as an alternative, such legislation amounts to little more than a threat to temporarily derail the kind of life desired by the immigrant.
     I will urge states to implement generous guest worker programs for undocumented immigrants, allow people to work while on welfare and transition from one to the other with a smooth transition by enacting negative income taxes, pass state-level D.R.E.A.M.-Act-type legislation that includes apprenticeship as a condition for citizenship, and consider having separate licenses for driving and car insurance versus for travel and security purposes.



18. Will you support keeping our Internet free from government control and intrusion, including opposing power grabs like SOPA, CISPA, or any bill that mandates more government intervention in the internet?

     Yes, I will support keeping the Internet free from federal government intrusion, including opposing power grabs like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and any bill that mandates more government intervention in the internet.
     I do not support giving the federal government the authority to police the internet. Senator Joe Lieberman's claim that the government needs to do this because China has a similar authority borders on absurdity, as does the idea that we should be reassured that the federal government will only use such a power to shut down particular websites instead of the entire internet.
     I believe that the federal government cannot be trusted to wield such a power because of the potential for that power to be utilized in order to spy on Americans, as well as to shut down websites which may host information that could expose crimes committed by public officials. Given the recently publicized revelation of the National Security Agency's Presidential Surveillance Program, this should evoke concerns about federal homeland security apparati encroaching upon civil liberties which states and local governments would rather continue to protect.
     While it is important to balance the federal government's power regarding internet policy, we should not necessarily automatically trust the states or the industries (in the case of intellectual property violations) to do so.
     While it would not violate the Constitution for state and local governments and their police departments to respectively regulate and police the internet, the surveillance and civil liberties problems would likely still be present. It might suit some states to urge citizens to report crimes and even suspicious behavior which they witness on the internet, and to use warrants and proper investigation instead of roving, warrantless internet monitoring by police.
     Additionally, it would not be appropriate to allow private industry to regulate the internet at any level of government. For industries to prosecute all alleged intellectual property violations as the law now stands would put tens of millions of Americans in prison. Peer-to-peer file-sharing is an act of copying and sharing an item following the legal purchase thereof; not an action which results in any diminished ability of the party possessing the copied good to continue to derive utility from owning it.
     I will vote to oppose all federal legislation concerning the regulation and policing of the internet, including proposed national taxes on internet sales, and regulation to deter online piracy (on the grounds that it is a victimless crime and that stronger limitations are needed on grants of intellectual property rights).



19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed all federal legislation which provides for tax increases.
     For government to control 40% of the spending in the nation – and for the federal government to control over 25% of the GDP (as was the case just several years ago) – is unsustainable. I believe that 15% is a more appropriate goal in the short term, and that 12.5% (one-eighth of G.D.P.; in today's terms $2.1 trillion out of a $16.8 trillion G.D.P.) is an appropriate long-term goal.
     I will introduce legislation that views this 12.5%-15% range as a base rate for taxation of any and all behaviors which are taxed by the federal government (in a manner which is constitutional), and the closing of loopholes based on this notion, as well as the notion that taxes should exempt anyone but people living below the poverty line.
     Reduction of taxes below the 12.5% rate should only follow additional reductions of federal spending to below that rate. Additionally, such cuts should follow the reduction of the deficit to zero (for which such spending reductions would provide), and the payment of all foreign and public debts.



20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
- Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut
- Capital Gains Tax Cut
- Business Tax Cut
- Estate Tax Cut

     I will vote for all of the above mentioned tax cuts.
     Given the fact that this year we are between 2/3 and ¾ of the way closer to reducing the gap between the 2009 deficit and a balanced budget, it is no longer anywhere near as unreasonable to consider cutting taxes as it seemed five years ago; nor unreasonable to refrain from increasing spending, borrowing, Quantitative Easing, the debt, the deficit, and establishing realistic, permanent limits on debt, spending-to-GDP ratios, and debt-to-GDP ratios.
     A budget that cuts commerce, military, and intelligence first - before carefully cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and the Departments of H.U.D. and Education, and other departments and programs - will make the prospects of decreased taxes and balanced budgets even more realistic. Therefore, I will vote for legislation providing for across-the-board income tax cuts, following cuts in spending and the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I will vote to lower all federal income taxes to 15% - and then, as soon as possible, to 12.5% - for all income earners living above the poverty line. I will also vote for capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gift tax cuts, because they are all duplicative taxes; taxes on the savings of and transactions in wealth which has already been taxed generally as personal income.
     In principle, I am as open to reducing and abolishing general taxes on personal income as I will on reducing and abolishing the four duplicative taxes. This is because these taxes could not rightfully be considered duplicative taxes if the initial income taxation never occurred in the first place. But it is for that reason that I will be more open to abolishing general taxes on personal income.
     I will support abolishing general income taxes gradually (but not before enacting a temporary negative income tax) while keeping the capital gains, business dividends, estate, and gift taxes; for as long as are necessary to balance the budget and pay off the nation's debt. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment which would repeal the 16th Amendment and provide for the federal government to tax capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gifts, but not personal income in a general manner.
     I take this position because to enact taxation on the income of all earners (i.e., capitation) - instead of earners in special categories – would only serve to perpetuate an unfair balance of the tax burden, risk increasing the costs and bureaucracy of tax collection, and risk that a surveillance state and the militarization of bureaucrats and police officers could be depicted as necessary to enforce it.
     While supporting the reduction of spending and the transition to a temporary negative income tax, I will vote to support legislation providing for the 10% to 15% range of rates now paid on capital gains to be assimilated to 15%, followed by a decrease of that rate to 12.5% as soon as the 15% spending-to-G.D.P. ratio limit – and a provision for swift transition to the 12.5% mark - have been met in a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I would additionally vote to support removing the second-lowest tax bracket's exemption from the capital gains tax, and I would vote to remove subsidies to businesses which pay less than zero in their taxes due to those subsidies, increasing the rates on all taxes they and their employees pay to the aforementioned 15% to 12.5% range.
     While supporting spending reductions and the negative income tax, I will also vote to support lowering taxes on business dividends from the 15% to 35% rates range to 15% for all, with only the lowest income bracket being exempted. I will also support lowering the estate tax rate from 40% down to 12.5% as soon as possible.
     After spending cuts have been achieved, the negative income tax has been enacted, debt has been reduced, and the negative income tax has been abolished, I will vote to support legislation authorizing the taxation of income and sales only upon condition of such legislation's constitutionality, and of such taxes being apportioned according to either the population of each state, the value of the land in each state, or some reconciliation thereof. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment to that affect, which would amend Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
     I will additionally sponsor legislation to authorize use of the federal government's power to collect duties, imposts, and excises, which Congress has the constitutionally enumerated power to levy. I will support levying such tariffs in a manner which imposes the highest fees on nations which have the greatest disparity of wealth, and standards on human rights, pollution, and labor safety and health, while imposing the lowest tariffs on nations which have the least of these problems. I believe that this would help avoid the risks of war associated with economic sanctions, as well as encourage the alignment of profitable trade with human rights and a decent standard of living.

     Finally, I would urge most states to double or triple their total revenues coming from the unimproved value of land, while phasing out general taxes on income and sales.



For more entries on banking, the treasury, currency, inflation, and business, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/debt-and-federal-budget.html

For more entries on gun control, the Second Amendment, and arrest, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-aurora-batman-massacre.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/gun-control.html

For more entries on Oregon politics, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/proposed-us-federal-government-budget.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...