Showing posts with label U.S. Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Congress. Show all posts

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Republican Liberty Caucus Federal Candidate Questionnaire

I wrote the following piece as my response to the questionnaire for candidates for federal positions who are seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (Republican Party).

I will be running for the U.S. House of Representatives from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District.

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw






Summary of Responses

1. The proper role of government is to protect individual rights and support useful commerce; not to provide for the common good, nor to preserve American culture.

2. Taxing foreign trade is the only constitutional method of obtaining federal revenues, but any additional taxes on capital, labor, and consumption could be implemented constitutionally via the amendment process.

3. The federal government has the Constitutional authority to enforce an individual right to keep and bear arms; but not to require registration of firearms ownership, limit magazine capacity or gun features, or require waiting periods for weapon purchases.

4. Federal electoral campaign contributions and expenditures should be reported and publicly disclosed by state governments; not financed and controlled by the Federal Election Commission, nor protected as free speech.

5. What is a proper education for children should be decided by their parents and the local school boards; not the state education boards, nor the federal Department of Education.

6. From the current level, federal government spending should decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases; rather than increase or be set at some undetermined level.

7. I favor both bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements to reduce barriers to trade; rather than favoring America first in every way possible or supporting and protecting industries which are in trouble.

8. U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified when a clear and imminent threat is evident, after Congress declares war, and when our legitimate national interests are at stake, not when our national interests are related to the oil markets, and not before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens. Intervention is also justified when the threat is imminent, the war is declared by Congress, and our help is specifically requested by the international community.

9. I favor national service which is strictly voluntary; not national service which is compulsory for military needs, nor required for community benefit, nor discriminatory towards non-heterosexuals.

10. Drugs, chemicals, and foods which may have harmful side effects should be either well-labeled and available to adults, or available with a physician's prescription, and that decision should be made at the state and local levels. Potentially harmful foods and drugs should not be banned or controlled by the federal government, nor should they be protected by liability limits.

11. The federal government should engage in neither standardizing claims related to clean air and water, purchasing additional land for National Parks, protecting endangered species, nor participating in - nor pressuring other nations to participate in - the Kyoto Protocol.

12. Congress's power to provide for the general welfare means that the federal government should exercise power over issues that affect the entire U.S. population; not that business interests, social welfare, nor any light and transient cause that might help some indeterminate number or group of people, should justify federal spending)



Explanation of Responses

1. B & D
   (The proper role of government is to protect individual rights and support useful commerce; not to provide for the common good, nor to preserve American culture)
   The proper role of government is to (B) protect individual rights, such as the natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; and to (D) support useful commerce by ensuring that interstate commerce is well-regulated – that is, uninterrupted, unobstructed, and free from the effects of monopolies and trusts which are harmful to competitive markets.
   The Congress does not have any enumerated constitutional authority to (C) preserve American culture aside from fixing the standards of weights and measures. (A) Providing for the common good is not the proper role of the U.S. federal government (I will explain why in my answer to Question #12, which concerns the General Welfare Clause).

2. Primarily D, but all of the above under certain conditions
   (Taxing foreign trade is the only constitutional method of obtaining federal revenues, but any additional taxes on capital, labor, and consumption could be implemented constitutionally via the amendment process)
   The best method of obtaining federal revenues is to (D) tax foreign trade, because duties, imposts, and excises are the only types of taxation which the Congress has constitutionally enumerated power to levy.
   We should be wary that to tax (A) capital / profits, (B) labor / income, (C) consumption / sales, and/or (D) foreign trade / imports and exports may effectively discourage the action which is taxed, and remember that we should only tax things which we want to discourage; things like conspicuous consumption and frivolity.
   I would favor repealing the unconstitutional 16th Amendment which provided for the taxation of (B) income, and I would support funding the federal government through taxes on importation and exportation (as the only constitutional forms of taxation).
   While supporting a return to 100% federal revenue derived from (D) taxes on foreign trade, I would support transitioning to a situation in which taxes on foreign goods are supplemented by (C) a consumption tax which would act as a luxury law on conspicuous consumption and frivolity, alongside a negative tax on (B) income, and a tax correcting disparities in the gains of (A) capital and (B) labor.
   I would support such taxation legislation only under the condition that it be apportioned according to the population of the states, that it go through the amendment process, and that it not authorize the president or the Congress to wield some new powers to levy taxes which have no constitutional precedent.

3. A
   (The federal government has the Constitutional authority to enforce an individual right to keep and bear arms; but not to require registration of firearms ownership, limit magazine capacity or gun features, or require waiting periods for weapon purchases)
   The federal government has the constitutional authority to (A) enforce an individual right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is natural, fundamental, and inalienable, and the significance of its appearance in the Bill of Rights is that the states permitted the federal government to come into existence only under the condition that it not interfere with that right.
   There is no constitutionally enumerated authority for the Congress to (B) require registration of firearms ownership, (C) limit magazine capacity or gun features, or (D) require waiting periods for weapons purchases.
   The only powers which the federal government has that pertain to arms are the power to enjoin the states from prohibiting the importation of arms and arms components, and the power to ensure that states provide the people with equal protection under the law in regard to the right to keep and bear arms.

4. B and D
   (Federal electoral campaign contributions and expenditures should be reported and publicly disclosed by state governments not financed and controlled by the Federal Election Commission, nor protected as free speech)
   The federal government has no enumerated constitutional authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures, so there is no constitutional precedent for campaign contributions to be (A) financed and controlled by the Federal Election Commission. This means that the right to make contributions to electoral campaigns should be (D) restricted only by state governments.
I do not believe that campaign contributions are (C) protected free speech; I believe that campaign contribution is commercial business activity. The 1st Amendment protects the right to non-violent spoken and written self-expression, including political speech and writing, but he absolute freedom of expression is not enumerated in the 1st Amendment, so the notion that campaign contribution is political expression and therefore protected speech is invalid.
   The purpose of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment is to prohibit the federal government from making laws which inhibit the freedom of speech and writing which are not fraudulent, treasonous, slanderous, or libelous; the 1st Amendment is designed to protect political speech. An interpretation of the 1st Amendment which protects the right to unlimited, undisclosed campaign contributions does not protect political speech.
   I would support passing a constitutional amendment which requires any entity classified as a corporate person - whether an individual, a corporation, a labor union, a governmental agency, or some other organization - to have both the freedom of trade associated with corporation status and the responsibilities associated with humanity (in addition to responsibilities to investors as the public), such as the responsibility to provide restitution for fraud, and the responsibility to be transparent about campaign donations.
   In summary, while the only solution which is currently constitutional is (D) restriction on a state-by-state basis, I would support abolishing the F.E.C., and I would propose a constitutional amendment which explicitly authorizes the federal government to restrict campaign contributions and expenditures as commercial business activity, by requiring (B) the reporting and public disclosure of federal electoral campaign contributions and expenditures.

5. C and D
   (Children's parents and local school boards should decide what is a proper education for children; not the state education boards, nor the federal Department of Education)
   The proper education for children should be decided primarily by (C) the child's parents and (D) the local school boards; not by (A) the Department of Education or (B) the state education boards.
   This is because there is no enumerated authority in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate education, and because powers not vested in the federal government are retained by the states and the people.
   Constitutionally, the authority to regulate education is vested in the people and the states. The purpose of having territories of policy influence be clearly delineated amongst the states and the federal government is to ensure that most governance is done near the people it governs, and that a community of people should govern itself instead of a distant authority (whether foreign or central).
   Therefore it follows that local solutions should be chosen so long as they are not only close but also sufficiently competent to make decisions. This is why I support giving the most decision-making authority regarding child education to (C) the child's parents, followed by (D) the local school boards, and lastly (B) the state education boards. I would vote to abolish the federal Department of Education, and I would only support federal regulation of education in a case in which it were to be passed as a constitutional amendment.

6. B
   (From the current level, federal government spending should decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases rather than increase or be set at some undetermined level)
   Federal government spending should (B) decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases. I would not favor (A and C) increasing spending because I believe that we can and should reduce spending and eventually reduce taxes without ceasing federal involvement in any programs which cannot be administered without the assistance of the federal government.
   I would not favor (D) setting spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government programs, because I feel that this attitude reflects a lack of principles about the proper role, size, and scope of government, and that it is a slippery slope to lack of fiscal restraint, deficits, and unfunded liabilities.
   As such, I would support efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment, and I would enthusiastically consider – but be cautious to approve – any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance-type legislation.

7. A and C
   (I favor both bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements to reduce barriers to trade; rather than favoring America first in every way possible or supporting and protecting industries which are in trouble)
   With respect to international commerce, I favor both (A) multi-lateral and (C) bilateral agreements and treaties to reduce barriers to trade such as quotas and tariffs.
   I believe that it would not be wise to support (D) America first in every way possible or to (B) support and protect industries which are in trouble because for a country to consider only its own interests and not the interests of other nations, and to favor itself and its industries – and choose itself and its industries as winners in the market – is to flaunt the fundamental rules of free markets, which is fair competition where no one is a dictator and no one is under duress.
    Nations must reduce barriers to trade – such as quotas and tariffs – in order to foster an environment of free and fair trade and friendly competition, without the corruption of government subsidies, favors, bailouts, and protectionism.
   I would support efforts to make both (A) multi-lateral and (C) bilateral agreements and treaties to reduce barriers to trade, in order to promote economic freedom and good economic and social relations with foreign nations.

8. B and C, and A under certain conditions
   (U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified when a clear and imminent threat is evident, after Congress declares war, and when our legitimate national interests are at stake, not when our national interests are related to the oil markets, and not before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens.
   Intervention is also justified when the threat is imminent, the war is declared by Congress, and our help is specifically requested by the international community)
   A U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified (B) when a clear and imminent threat is evident and (C) after Congress declares war. Intervention would not be justified (D) before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens, because there would not be (B) evidence of a clear and imminent threat.
   To support U.S. military intervention in other nations (A) whenever a national interest is at stake is to risk supporting the use of military force to protect American business interests and properties in other countries.
   It is to risk the lives and livelihoods of American soldiers, American civilians, and civilians in foreign nations alike, by entangling the United States in wars for oil, political and military power, gains from war profiteering, and control of banking and currency in Middle Eastern nations and other countries around the world.
   The U.S. should only intervene in other nations militarily when (A) its national interests are at stake (but only when those interests favor lives over corruptible business influence) or when specifically asked by the international community, (B) when a clear and imminent threat is evident (but not (D) before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens), and (C) after Congress declares war.

9. A
   (I favor national service which is strictly voluntary; not national service which is compulsory for military needs, nor required for community benefit, nor discriminatory towards non-heterosexuals)
   To have military service which is (B) compulsory for military needs and/or (C) required for community benefit is to undermine the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was to protect the right of conscientious objection (as the right to bear arms whether serving in an organized or unorganized militia).
   A war or military intervention which our leaders in the national government have to sell to the American people through manufacturing false threats and unsubstantiated rumors asking foreign leaders to prove a negative, and which cannot get enough popular support in Congress or enough military volunteers, is not a war which we should commit to fighting without re-evaluating our objectives, and it is not a war which we should spend a great amount of our resources fighting due to the risk of war profiteering through mercenary and infrastructure contracting.
   I do not favor (D) limiting national service to male heterosexuals because I support the right of all Americans – homosexuals included – to be free from discrimination in the public sector, which includes the military and all government agencies.

10. B and C
   (Drugs, chemicals, and foods which may have harmful side effects should be either well-labeled and available to adults, or available with a physician's prescription; that decision should be made at the state and local levels. Potentially harmful foods and drugs should not be banned or controlled by the federal government, nor should they be protected by liability limits)
   There is no constitutionally enumerated power for (A) the Congress to control, limit, or ban potentially harmful goods. I favor abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, and I would only favor federal involvement in foods and drugs if the authority to regulate were implemented according to a bill which went through the amendment process and became part of the Constitution.
   I would support (B) requiring a physician's prescription and state regulation. The states do not have the right to place outright bans on the import and export of particular goods, because that action interferes with interstate commerce; the free flow of goods among the several states. However, states do have the right to place restrictions and conditions upon the purchase, sale, ownership, etc. of goods, provided that those restrictions and conditions do not effectively prohibit commerce in such good(s).
   I do not support (D) protecting producers of harmful goods with liability limits because I believe that such limits constitute an assault on the freedom of juries to award the compensation they deem appropriate; juries' rights are needed to protect the well-being of victims of private interests, government, and common criminals alike.
   I would support a combination of (B) and (C): potentially harmful goods should be either available well-labeled to adults, or requiring a physician's prescription. I would argue that that decision – pertaining to each possibly harmful food or drug – should be done at the most local competent level of government, with no state being free to interrupt interstate commerce or prohibit intrastate manufacture of any good.

11. None of the above
   (The federal government should engage in neither standardizing claims related to clean air and water, purchasing additional land for National Parks, protecting endangered species, nor participating in - nor pressuring other nations to participate in - the Kyoto Protocol)
   There is no constitutionally enumerated authority for the federal government to regulate the environment; therefore there is no constitutional authority for the Environmental Protection Agency, for the federal government to (A) standardize claims related to clean air and water, (B) purchase additional land for National Parks, or (C) protect endangered species.
   Several years ago, actions by the E.P.A. actually served to lower clean air standards, when a third of the states were prevented from raising their motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards. I would vote to support the abolition of the E.P.A. because it is unconstitutional, it standardizes mediocrity, and the states have the authority and the will to implement high (A) standards for clean air and water themselves, as well as to set examples for the nation in that area.
   It is not a proper role of the federal government to (D) participate in and pressure other nations to participate in the Kyoto Protocol. The United States should not be a member of the United Nations as it is, because it subverts our sovereignty (the co-equal sovereignty of our states' and national governments) by positioning international law as supreme above national law.
   I believe that the Congress should make treaties and engage diplomatically with foreign national governments, but it should primarily be done bilaterally and multilaterally instead of with all recognized worldwide sovereigns at once. This style of decision-making gives undue advantages and disadvantages for countries large and small, rich and poor, and weak and powerful alike.
   In summary, I would leave the responsibility to (B) protect and own land now owned by the national government – and the responsibility to protect endangered species – up to the states and the localities, rather than to the federal government. I would support legislation providing for federal regulation of the environment provided that such legislation were to go through the amendment process and become part of the Constitution.

12. C
   (Congress's power to provide for the general welfare means that the federal government should exercise power over issues that affect the entire U.S. population; not that business interests, social welfare, nor any light and transient cause that might help some indeterminate number or group of people, should justify federal spending)
   Congress's power to provide for general welfare means that (C) the federal government should exercise power over issues that jeopardize the safety of the entire U.S. population.
   There is no explicit power of Congress to “provide for the common good”, and the power to provide for the “general welfare” is often misinterpreted. “General welfare” does not mean vague welfare; that is, it does not mean (D) any government that can help citizens.
    It does also not mean (A) protecting, bailing out, and giving favors to businesses and industries or (B) providing all citizens with a minimum income. The “general welfare” means “the good of all (or nearly all) people in the country”.
    This interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is essential to preventing runaway federal spending on national projects that benefit only one area of the nation, or customers and owners of - and investors in – certain businesses.
    A bridge that would only be used by a handful of people a day in Alaska, and a public transit system in Madison, Wisconsin that would be used by a hundred thousand people a day, et cetera, do not benefit all or nearly all American citizens. How those projects are funded should reflect that fact, as well as the principles of local and decentralized government upon which our structure of government was based.



Top three issues or themes for my campaign:

- Individual Rights and Local Government
- A Diverse Market for Government
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 14, 2012

Congressional Campaign Poster




For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 27, 2012

Congressional Campaign Tri-Fold Flyer




For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Against Lee, Pocan, Roys, Worzala, and Silverman


This critique of my opponents' positions was written before Republican Dave Redick entered the race as a Republican, and Rocky Ison entered with the statement of principle "Father Son and Holy Ghost".




               I’m Joe Kopsick, independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin’s 2nd congressional district in 2012.

            Five candidates – one Republican and four Democrats – have stated an interest to seek their parties’ nominations for the office of U.S. Representative. The Republican is former party nominee, small business owner, and musician Chad Lee; and the Democrats are small business owner and Wisconsin State Assemblyman Mark Pocan, attorney and State Assemblywoman Kelda Helen Roys, Dane County Treasurer Dave Worzala, and veteran and attorney Matt Silverman.

 

            Chad Lee – the Republican who ran against Tammy Baldwin in 2010 – is the former co-owner of the Better Butler cleaning service. Better Butler is now owned by his brother Beau, who once played with Chad in a Christian rock band called Rex Lex. The Lees’ father is a Pentacostal minister at Life Church in Mt. Horeb.

Chad Lee has expressed interest in ending federal funding for the teaching of evolution, and promoted the teaching of intelligent design in schools. His brother has urged fans of Rex Lex to read the Bible “like it’s a history book”. Lee also supports the building of a fence along the length of the U.S. - Mexico border, as well as Arizona’s immigration policy.

 

Democratic Wisconsin State Assemblyman Mark Pocan has opposed legislation amending the State Constitution to limit government spending during his service in the State Assembly. Despite claiming that he would like to help small businesses obtain the capital they need in order to grow, Pocan – a small business owner himself – opposed a small business tax credit bill while in the legislature.

Pocan also has a flawed record in promoting the freedom of choice – and in protecting the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship – by opposing a bill requiring doctors to verify the uncoerced, independent consent of the patient by dismissing any potentially influential third parties.

Additionally, Pocan has a poor record promoting the right to bear arms. He has opposed concealed-carry laws, and supported civil liability for homeowners using deadly force against intruders in order to prevent imminent death. A realization of Pocan’s policy would compromise people’s ability to defend themselves against their government.

 

Democratic State Representative Kelda Helen Roys joined Mark Pocan in his support of former Governor Jim Doyle’s ban on smoking in public places and private places of employment throughout Wisconsin; and in Pocan’s opposition to the sale of alcohol to supervised 18- to 20-year-olds, concealed-carry laws, and civil liability for homeowners against violent intruders.

Democratic Treasurer of Dane County Dave Worzala has stated that he does “not believe in the rhetoric of no new taxes”. He believes that raising levels of spending and taxation – including a repeal of the Bush tax cuts – will solve the federal budget crisis, and he would also support continued federal investment in national infrastructure.

Veteran and attorney Matt Silverman has stated that he would support the increase of federal taxes, incorrectly believes that the United States is a democracy, and describes himself as a “pragmatic Democrat”.

 

I join Mark Pocan in his support for a sensible policy on illicit drugs, and freedom for Wisconsin’s L.G.B.T.Q. community from institutional public-sector discrimination. I would praise his aversion to risking appeasement by legislation providing for insufficient tax credits for small businesses, and against risking increasing the financial and labor burden on women’s health facilities in the state by mandating unnecessary medical procedures and the transmission of excessive information.

I share Matt Silverman’s desires to decrease federal spending, and to stay amenable to accommodation of others’ views in order to bring about substantive change. I would praise him for taking a principled personal stance in opposition to the big-budget campaign finance of business interests, and for supporting the democratic aspects of our republic.

I join Kelda Roys in her steadfast support for the freedom of choice in regards to abortion, and in her support for gay rights in Wisconsin’s public sector. I join Dave Worzala in his desire to curb federal spending, end the deficit, and change the tax code; and I support his having called attention to the need to improve the nation’s infrastructure.

I join Chad Lee in his concerns about our tax policy and our ability to balance budgets; and in his support for fiscal restraint, free-market solutions, limited government, and nullification.

 

However, I am running for the House of Representatives because I feel that none of these candidates sufficiently represent my views, and because I am concerned that for any of them to be elected could risk increasing political contention and deepening social and cultural conflict. I would counteract this by showing that the range of acceptable political positions is becoming broader and more nuanced, and that independent and third-party candidates are an important source for original and unique policy positions.

 

Theory of Government

Unlike some of my Democratic opponents, I do not believe that we are more free the more “democratic” the federal government becomes, and the more it encroaches on the rights of the states and on the people thereof. Like my Republican opponent Chad Lee, I support states’ rights and nullification, in addition to a sharply limited federal government. I would describe myself as a small-“r” republican independent, and a dual-federalist in regards to constitutional theory.

As a member of Congress, I believe that I could help to promote the legitimacy of the relationship between the people and the various levels of government even better than could Mr. Lee. I would vote to support requiring the transmission of certain information to – and independent verification of informed consent of – all parties involved, before a government is delegated authority by the people or by smaller governments. I would also vote in principled dedication to a pluralistic accommodation of alternative viewpoints; and in favor of urging all civil and economic societies to stay true to their ideological cores, undisturbed by the need for moderation, pragmatism, or expedience.

 

Taxes and Spending

            While three of my Democratic opponents have been vocal about balancing government budgets, ending the deficit, and curbing spending, their records and policies show otherwise. Mark Pocan opposed legislation amending the state constitution to limit spending, both Matt Silverman and Dave Worzala – if not both other Democratic candidates as well – support increasing taxes, and Treasurer Worzala seems to believe that increasing taxes and spending will cause spending to be curbed.

            Like Chad Lee, I support fiscal restraint in government, and free-market solutions. I believe that in a time of economic stagnation or recession, rapid growth of government budgets, and intrusion into the freedom of the market and the personal lives of the people, taxes should not be raised, and consideration of enacting legal limits on government spending should be urged.

However, I would aim to outdo Mr. Lee in protecting citizens from big government and heavy taxes by supporting tax legislation only if and when it challenges the predominant modern notions of what forms of taxation are constitutionally and ethically acceptable.

I would support attempts to repeal and to judicially invalidate the 16th Amendment, propose a constitutional amendment properly authorizing direct taxation without apportionment, and sponsor legislation requiring that federal revenues be derived only from the product of state duties and imposts, and from an accelerating graduated tax penalizing the creation of income gaps.

 

Elections and Business Welfare

I would caution voters that a stated personal opposition to big-budget campaigns and lobbying often mean nothing when the candidate expressing the sentiment describes himself as “pragmatic”. I am concerned that Matt Silverman’s promise to be pragmatic may reflect a lack of legal and ethical principles, and a personal lack of feeling of responsibility to be consistent.

Corporate personhood is not a threat to public influence on elections and to the financial security of Americans as much as are personal corporationhood, and the unchecked power of pragmatic politicians to decide to hand out favors to lobbyists without regard to the letter of the law or to the privity of citizens to deal-making in the government.

I would also caution voters that Mark Pocan’s status as a small business owner, his record promoting small business interests, and his likely disdain for the strict-constructionist interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause could risk increasing inappropriate federal expenditures to finance and favor small business.

I believe that this would lend more credence to the growing bailout culture in which government picks winners and losers – not only among large businesses and corporations, but among small businesses as well – and that it would likely increase public distraction, diverting attention away from institutional monetary, taxation, and banking policies which are more directly responsible for the current economic environment.

 

Federal Infrastructure

Unlike candidate Dave Worzala, I would vote to oppose federal spending on infrastructure. Being that the federal government has the constitutional authority to build roads and railroads, I would oppose these activities neither as strongly nor for the same reasons as other infrastructure projects. I would however caution against the risks of bureaucratization and financial mismanagement which often result from such expensive undertakings.

While I believe that there is a need to improve national infrastructure, I feel that involvement of the federal government often risks increasing costs, increasing abuse and oligopoly in the infrastructure-building market; illegitimatizing the political culture in Washington; and undermining the independence of the states.

I would also note that I do not believe that centrally-planned national infrastructure projects have historically helped relieve economic stagnation, recession, and depression as much as has drawing down the scope and aggressiveness of our military activities.

 

Gay Rights

            The victory of Mark Pocan or Kelda Roys would likely lead to a more active and vocal promotion of gay rights in the public sphere. I would caution voters that this could lend credence to the notion that government – and / or all society – should treat people differently because they belong to this or that cultural, religious, ethnic, national, gender, sexual orientation, or differently-abled demographic group.

            While I believe that non-heterosexuals should be protected from discrimination by the public sector, I would caution governments not to intervene in too much of the social economy with the goal of preventing, prohibiting, or restituting discrimination. This is because in the economy and in society, there exist non-institutional forms of discriminatory action which do not – either directly, immediately, or at all – constitute the threat of harm against persons and their property; that is, they cannot be easily defended as inherently unethical.

            On the issue of gay marriage; while I agree with Chad Lee that this issue should be left up to the states, I would take additional steps promoting individual and local sovereignty and independence in this policy area – as well as personal social tolerance and acceptance – which Lee may not be as likely to emphasize.

I would urge governments at all levels to enforce all contracts which outline the conditions of such relationships between informed, consenting adults, regardless of which words partners to those relationships may wish to use to describe them. I would also urge private persons and agencies of capital and labor not to discriminate against non-heterosexuals; support a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act; and support constitutional amendments requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex unions which are valid in states, and legalizing same-sex unions nationwide.

 

Abortion

            A realization of Mark Pocan’s position on abortion would have risked that potentially influential third parties other than the doctor and patient may – by the mere fact of their presence – dissuade patients from undergoing abortion procedures.

            Being that my Democratic opponents such as Pocan may be inclined to oppose any and all Republican-sponsored women’s health policies, they may fail to consider that some Republican legislation may occasionally serve to protect the safety and liberty of the patient. However, the anti-Roe-v.-Wade platform endorsing the 10th Amendment – espoused by the likes of Chad Lee – is no more preferable than are most Democratic policies.

I would vote to oppose federal funding for abortion; and support an act of Congress which would remove the regulation of abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and place it under control of the states, thus nullifying the Roe decision. I would then support a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion in all states, and refrain from interfering in the rights of states to permit governments within them to prohibit abortion and contraception.

I would urge the states to permit non-governmental actors and subsidiary governments to compete against one another to provide abortion and contraception, and urge governments at all levels to refrain from requiring abortion providers to transmit unnecessary amounts of non-medical information to patients, but I would also recommend that doctors verify the independent consent of patients.

 

Law Enforcement      

            While a law enforcement policy supported by Democrats such as Mark Pocan and Kelda Roys would likely relieve police from enforcing unnecessary vice laws against marijuana, it would do little to nothing to relieve police from enforcing vice laws against alcohol and tobacco.

            Such a policy would also compromise the people’s ability to defend themselves against intruders and against their government. In a time of multiple perpetual wars, permanent emergency, and erosion at the Bill of Rights, the people need all the help they can get protecting themselves.

An increase in citizen self-defense would relieve the burden of the government to protect us (thus de-oligopolizing and making freer the market for security), and also decrease government justification for intervening in the affairs of others on the behalf of the people.

I would work to restore the Bill of Rights, procure new privileges for the accused, and make state citizenship optional; and I would oppose attempts by any monopoly government to legalize civil restitution for harming law enforcement officers presenting clear, present, and imminent danger to life while in the line of official duty.

I would urge all governments to protect the right to bear arms, vote to oppose federal weapons bans on 2nd-Amendment grounds, and oppose states’ bans on weapons by invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause. I would also urge all governments to allow other governmental and non-governmental actors to register the weapons of their citizens and clients as all involved parties would agree.

Additionally, I would vote to oppose all federal funding for the war on drugs, especially overseas; and to oppose states’ bans on illicit and prescription drugs – as well as non-illicit drugs like alcohol and tobacco – by invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause. I would also urge people and governments to be cautious that business owners who are prohibited from allowing smoking on their property consent to the regulation and are justly compensated for any loss of revenue and / or property value resulting from the takings of the right to permit smoking.

 

Immigration

            While I would praise Chad Lee for his general support of the 10th Amendment, I consider his immigration policy destructive of the rights of the accused and inhibitive of the freedom of travel.

I believe that there is a need to cultivate a comprehensive, nationwide immigration policy which is humane and pluralistic, but which also does not threaten the sovereignty and independence of particularly anti-illegal-immigration states such as Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and it forbids Congress from prohibiting the migration and importation of persons which are thought reasonable by the states. However – although there is no constitutional provision that would prevent a state from constructing a border fence – there is no explicit authority for the federal government to do so. I would support a constitutional amendment which would prohibit both the federal and state governments from maintaining or continuing to construct fences on our international borders.

I would oppose all existing and proposed laws providing for mandatory identification documents for all persons. I would urge all citizens, courts, and law enforcement officials not to extradite illegal immigrants to their home countries unless it can be shown that their ostensible consent to become subject to that country’s authority was informed and not under duress, and also that that country prohibits illegal emigration. Moreover, I would urge governments at all levels to grant rights of the accused – to both federal subjects and non-subjects alike – which are either on-par with or more protective than the 4th Amendment.

Additionally, I would note that opponents of illegal immigration would have less justification for their personal views and legal positions were they to become aware that the federal government has conducted cross-border weapons-for-drugs programs and arms-trafficking-and-tracking operations, which have destabilized and undermined the sovereignty of Mexico, and caused death of American border personnel.

Voting to stop and prevent – and investigating to uncover the facts about – such operations is crucial for restoring America’s reputation and credibility abroad; ameliorating artificial antipathy towards minority groups and improving race relations; and saving lives of American civilians, law enforcement officers, and politicians.

 

Social Culture and Foreign Policy

            None of my opponents have intentionally made religious and social culture or foreign policy major parts of their platforms. However – and for that reason – I am concerned that their not having strongly condemned our nation’s present path in regards to these matters could indicate their indifference and / or complacency to it.

            This risk is particularly frightening to me – as it should be to all male citizens below the age of 26 – as a person who is registered and eligible for selective service; and at a time in history when the world’s cultural and military conflict is deepening and could potentially accelerate into a full-scale, international nuclear holy war.

            As both a candidate and as a U.S. representative, I will vocally oppose the subversion of American national sovereignty and interest to the concerns of the Zionist lobby, oppose all attempts to continue to fund arms races between the State of Israel and its neighbors, and call attention to any suspected institutional moves to deliberately exclude or suppress the articulation and communication of anti-Zionist religious, cultural, political, and military policy positions.

 

 

I’m running for Congress because I support free-market and strict-constructionist policies which I feel not one of my opponents – even the Republican – either fully nor sufficiently supports. But I’m also running because I support social-justice ethics which not one of my opponents – even the Democrats – sufficiently supports.

If elected to the 113th Congress from Wisconsin’s 2nd district, I would be an outspoken voice supporting dual federalism, American national sovereignty, a non-interventionist foreign policy, the restoration of the civil liberties contained in the Bill of Rights, the freedom of choice, freedom from public-sector discrimination, amnesty for all non-violent undocumented immigrants, a non-interventionist monetary policy, sound currency, and real fiscal restraint.

I would be an ardent critic of the current federal monetary, budgetary, taxation, and wage policies; the political influence of all types of lobbies from Wall Street to Israel; and the overly loose, predominantly-held interpretation of the General Welfare Clause which excuses unconstitutional federal spending on military and economic aid to foreign governments; the development of national infrastructure; and loans, favors, and privileges for large labor unions and large businesses.

I would also criticize the overly loose interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause; the Just Compensation Clause; Presidential Reorganizational Authority of the executive branch; and all laws that unreasonably strengthen the power of the executive, especially to use emergency domestic security and financial powers, and to provide for continuity-of-government measures which erode civil liberties.

If I am elected, I will support the freedom of and from association; voluntary exchange and compliance; and a system of contract law which is the basis of – rather than limited by – all legitimate governance. My voting record will reflect the people’s desire to limit and decentralize government, require it to compete in all sectors of the social economy, and embrace free-market principles, and restore our republic and our individual rights in a manner that adheres to the letter of Constitutional law the way its framers intended.

Please vote for me – Joe Kopsick – for the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin’s 2nd district on November 6th, 2012.




For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 7, 2010

110th-111th Congress Votes in Accordance with Ron Paul

12-Term Congressman Ron Paul of Texas's 14th District




For more entries on election studies, 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...