|
|
|
|
ISSUES FACING AMERICAILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND SECURITY OF OUR BORDERS:
THE SECOND AMENDMENT: ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES: RADICAL ISLAM AND THE WAR ON TERROR: The War on Terror is unlike any threat we have encountered in the past. Our enemy is not primarily concerned with conquering territory it is committed to using barbaric means to eradicate our way of life. General Abizaid told a group of reporters who wanted to know the objectives of our Islamic enemies, "Look at life under the Taliban in Afghanistan before we defeated them. They would gather 60,000 people in a stadium to watch the beheading of women accused of adultery. They want to reestablish the caliphate of the six century." It is important to understand the goals of the enemy if we are to successfully defeat them at home and abroad. In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense. Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. I believe that we are in a clash of civilizations. A recent study by Freedom House showed that Islamic schools and mosques are spreading anti-American propaganda here in the United States. This battle for the minds of young Islamic men and women must be understood and turned back. Moreover, we must improve coordination of our federal law enforcement forces in the areas of investigations and prosecutions. We are not comforted by the creation of new mega agencies of homeland security and intelligence gathering. It seems like a lot of bureaucracy and not a prescription for doing a better job. I support the continuation of the Patriot Act which gives the government the powers it needs to protect the people, but we must also insure that the provisions are carried while guaranteeing that the constitutional rights of our citizens are thoroughly protected. STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE: Our military forces are the first line of security against our external enemies. The nation must provide our forces with the most technologically advanced equipment available: Both offensive and defensive equipment. We must never place our forces under the command of foreign nationals, the United Nations or be subject to trial by the International Criminal Court and we must treat attacks against our troops as attacks against the United States of America. I am outraged by the tendency of liberals at home and the news media to treat our troops as guilty of crimes they did not commit. I know that our military forces are the best and most law abiding in the world. Also, I urge the Federal Government to increase efforts to bring online more missile defense systems. With outlaw states like North Korea and Iran seeking to deploy nuclear weapons our forces and our nation must develop and deploy defensive systems that will not permit our enemies to successfully blackmail us. I support ROTC programs in our nation's schools and oppose attempts to ROTC and military recruiters off the campuses. HONESTY AND ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT: I believe that faith in our federal and state government institutions requires our government officials to act in an honorable manner and we shall require the highest ethical conduct by all of our government officials. The reforms we propose have become necessary because many government officials have seemingly misplaced their moral compasses and abdicated ethical responsibilities incumbent for a Constitutional Republic to survive. I will seek the following reforms to be enacted into law:
VOTER FRAUD AND ELECTION REFORM: The U.S. Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Therefore, I support a verifiable election process, with citizen checks and balances, which are beyond the control of our federal judicial system and the media.
RECOMMENDATIONS: - I favor an election process whereby our election officials who preside over our elections are above reproach in the vote counting process. Election officials should not be subject to an environment where the voting public is forced to rely on blind faith and trust as to the honor of any and all presiding elections officials. Therefore, I favor administrative changes to be enacted by local elections officials. Among these:
EDUCATION REFORM: American students continue to lag behind students internationally, a trend that is threatening our nation's global standing. Despite spending more than $11,000 per student annually on education, the United States ranks towards the bottom in international testing and is forced to dedicate $16.6 billion each year to remedial education for high school graduates who still lack the skills needed to go on to college or join the work force. Some recent findings of the Center for Education Reform (CER) were very disturbing: (1) American 15-year-olds trailed most industrialized nations in science and math, (2) American students lack basic grammar and spelling skills. Roughly the same percentages said they also lack the ability to write clearly, and (3) Over half of those teaching physical science classes (chemistry, physics, earth, or space sciences) are without a major or minor in any of the physical sciences. I believe we can educate students more effectively by returning school curriculum prerogatives to the states, local communities and, most importantly, to the family. State agencies charged with conducting education policies do not need expensive and inefficient mandates from a federal agency and I support streamlining the responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Education toward a goal of working in cooperation with local and state governments to meet local and state learning needs. I support taking the actions necessary to strengthen our public educational system and school vouchers are a great opportunity to provide students and their families with additional educational choices. According to national studies, a significant percentage of high school students have difficulty reading at a proficient level, test well below the international average in math and science, and lack basic knowledge in history. Clearly, parents have a reason to be concerned. Many Americans support innovative plans that address our current education shortcomings and I believe school vouchers are an effective way of achieving this goal. SCHOOL VOUCHERS: The Federal Government should allocate a certain amount of money per year for the education of each student that would be given to the states in the form of a voucher for the parents to use. If a state accepts and approves this voucher program, it will be mandatory for the states to eliminate the collection of school taxes on residential property. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY- NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: I call for the elimination of all laws, regulations or judicial decisions that grant Special Privileges or Protections for any race or group. Affirmative Action creates inequality before the Law, and only serves to fracture our national unity. While Affirmative Action (AA) and Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) have similar goals, they use very different methods, and have very different results. Both AA and EOE are aimed at equality in the workplace and in colleges, but they achieve this in different ways. EOE merely prevents an employer from discriminating against hiring a possible employee because of race, sex, age, or handicap. AA, however, attempts to establish equality in the workplace by directly controlling the number of minorities and other special groups in the workplace. For example, a business may hire so that its workforce is 40% caucasion, 30% black, 20% latino, and 10% miscellaneous. While both aim for the same result, EOE is a fair method, while AA is not. An employee should be hired based solely on their abilities and skills pertinent to the job, and race, gender, age, and handicap should not be taken into account (unless the job description specifies otherwise). AA attempts to achieve equality in an unfair way. If two candidates apply for the same job, and one is more qualified, but the other better fits the racial requirement in order to achieve the desired equality, the less capable applicant will get the job, which is unfair. For a specified time period, affirmative action programs should be continued only for economically disadvantaged American-born Black citizens, Native Americans and the disabled, but all Affirmative Action programs should expire or be eliminated within 5 to 10 years of the passage of new legislation. I support the elimination of, or reduction in, the collection of racial, ethnic and other statistics that divide America. We are all Americans and we should not be additionally classified by our race, ethnic background, etc. (e.g. Black-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc.) SOCIAL SECURITY: It is important that we acknowledge some of the shortcomings of Social Security as it currently exists. The current system simply cannot cope with the upcoming demographic changes in our country. The ratio of workers to retirees will drop close to 2-to-1 within a generation. To provide for tomorrow's retirees, we must become a nation of owners and savers. Unfortunately, the existing Social Security program does not save or invest for future generations of seniors. Without action to strengthen Social Security, the only options available to the government beginning in 2016 will be massive tax increases, deep benefit cuts for seniors, borrowing money on an unprecedented scale, massive cuts in other government programs -- and likely all of the above. Simply ignoring the impending crisis is irresponsible. Younger workers must be empowered to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which will allow us to gradually move away from the current unsustainable defined benefit approach of Social Security to a defined contribution approach -- similar to 401k programs and the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees. Until we provide the voluntary option of personal accounts to younger workers, we will never be able to afford Americans a personal stake in their own retirement. PARENTAL PRIMACY: I unequivocally support the return of all God-given rights for every family to decide how to discipline their children, what their children are allowed to do, and with whom their children are allowed to associate. Parents will decide where and how their child will be educated, whether in public, private or religious education. Parents will have the right to withdraw their child from sexual education classes if they believe the program is not in the best interest of their child or against their own moral or religious beliefs. Parents must be notified if their child asks for an abortion, or the taking of birth control pills. There should never be any type of sexual examination at school or on school time. An examination must be done with the parent's consent, and at their physician's office, or in extreme cases where abuse can and will be proved, by court order. No family should ever be threatened with the taking of their child if they do not conform to government rules and regulations. The government of the United States of America should never interfere with how a family decides to rear one's child. If it comes down to real child abuse, government involvement should revert to the county where the child lives, and then only with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Every child should be allowed to have prayer at school, during recess, lunch, or after school on school property. They should be allowed to have religious classes on their own time. These schools are paid for by "We the People." TAXATION AND THE IRS: I support Fair Tax Legislation. A Fair Tax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. My version of The Fair Tax Plan would abolish all federal personal income taxes, gift, estate, individual capital gains and alternative minimum, taxes and replace them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. I would retain some minimum corporate income taxes. A Fair Tax Plan would tax individuals only on what they choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what they earn. The Fair Tax concept is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system. The FairTax:
RIGHT TO LIFE: BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET: I support a balanced federal budget, with additional revenue provided by economic growth, not increased taxes. Further, I support limiting growth in non-defense areas. Government is spending dangerously beyond its means. For years, Congresses and Presidents of both parties have continued to spend more money than they take in. The largest component of this spending-spree is entitlement spending. Simply put, federal entitlement programs are too big and cost far too much. The American taxpayer cannot be asked to continue funding numerous entitlement programs or be all things for all people. Finally, we cannot ask the American people to pay higher taxes to finance this spending spree. We must remember that federal government is in debt because it spends too much, not because it taxes people too little. There two types of government spending-discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of all Federal spending, includes money for things like the Army, FBI, the Coast Guard and highway projects. Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on these programs on an annual basis. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, accounts for some two-thirds of all government spending. This kind of spending is authorized by permanent laws. It includes 'entitlements'-things like Social Security, Medicare, and Food Stamps-programs through which individuals receive benefits solely because of their age, income or other criteria. Spending levels in these areas are dictated by the number of people who sign up for these benefits, rather than by Congress. In order to reduce this kind of spending, Congress must make fundamental changes to the underlying programs - something that few political leaders in Washington have the stomach for. The only way we can rein in government spending is to take on entitlement spending. And the only way to take on entitlement spending is to fundamentally reform the crumbling and unsustainable institutions of the welfare state. Until Americans demand changes in mandatory spending, we will simply be treating the symptom of deficits rather than addressing the underlying problem of excessive spending. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE: Falling U.S. taxes on imported products and slowly crumbling foreign barriers to U.S. commerce have provided a number of benefits for Americans and American businesses. American consumers have unprecedented choices when it comes to everything from cars and computers to cell phones and coffee. U.S. manufacturing and agricultural exports have grown strongly over the last decade. Between 1994 and 2004, for example, exports in U.S. manufacturing and agriculture have increased 65 percent and 38 percent, respectively. And United States exports of high technology products have grown by a whopping 67 percent during the past 10 years. Unfortunately however, it isn't all good news. Many recent trade agreements have done far more than just phase out high U.S. taxes on imports and open new markets for U.S. businesses - a lot more. In fact, the primary "import" American trade negotiators seem concerned with these days is foreign workers. Take the recently approved Central American Free Trade Agreement, (CAFTA) for example. Buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services." This definition would effectively give people from Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. In fact, CAFTA is more than a just trade agreement about sugar and bananas; it is a thinly disguised immigration accord. Little effort is even made by the U.S. trade officials to hide their efforts. One article of the agreement reads, "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service…by a national of a party in the territory of another party." CAFTA also stipulates that member nations take care to ensure that local and national measures "relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and the U.S. is required to guarantee that our domestic laws are, "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service." U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements - or even licensing requirements and zoning rules - could be considered 'unnecessary barriers to trade' that act as 'restrictions on the supply of a service.' Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws, or face international trade sanctions. If CAFTA and its successors were really just about trade, the agreements would be little more than a few pages long, setting a schedule for opening markets and phasing out unfair taxes on goods. But they aren't. In reality, these agreements have become vehicles to expand a growing body of international law that threatens to supersede our own national sovereignty. THE PROPOSED NORTH AMERICAN UNION: I oppose the formation of a NORTH AMERICAN UNION, which is basically the creation of an organization similar to the European Union. It is based upon the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership,' that, on the surface, appears to be an open, above-board, well-advertised and widely publicized initiative to promote inter-governmental cooperation to fight terrorism, the threat of Avian flu, improve and tighten border security, and promote mutual prosperity. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Security and Prosperity Partnership was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an alliance of foreign consortiums and selected governmental officials from America, Canada and Mexico. This "partnership" is basically a plan for the integration of Canada, Mexico and the United States. The SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a 'dialogue' launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005. We know very little about the contents of this dialogue. Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in this 'dialogue' that many see as a plan for a North American Union. According to the SPP website, this 'dialogue' will create new supra-national organizations to 'coordinate' border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA-and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade. If you think such a drastic change in our nation won't happen without a national debate and voter referendum - think again. A close examination of just a few facts shows that a legal and institutional framework is indeed being put in place that could easily be switched into a full-fledged regional government. Step by step, America is moving from NAFTA - to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - and indications are the SPP will lead toward the creation of a North American Community as a logical precursor to a North American Union. FOREIGN AFFAIRS: 9/11 changed the world. An America that has a long history of trying to avoid entangled alliances has been forced to engage an enemy in a worldwide struggle in defense of security, freedom, and peaceful coexistence. The United States must engage our allies to promote our national interests. At the same we must be prepared to go it alone if our interests are not shared by friendly nations. We should continue to promote free democratic societies without getting bogged down in long drawn out affairs. When appropriate we should give non-military assistance to democratic forces. Such instruments as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty played an important role in helping to defeat the Soviet Union. Under our Constitution, foreign policy can only serve the lawful best interests of the United States Government and its citizens. The Constitution empowers and limits the federal government; therefore all treaties, alliances and agreements must be subordinate to the Constitution. I pledge my total allegiance to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. I believe that interpreting the Constitution must be based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning intended at that time. I totally reject the concept that the Constitution is a "living document," in which the meaning can be interpreted and altered as society changes. This concept is not only seductive, but totally against the intentions of its Framers. If the citizens of this nation wish to revise or change a portion of the Constitution there is a provision provided by the Framers called the Constitutional Amendment. It should be noted that the citizens of this nation have found it necessary to amend the Constitution only twenty-seven times since adoption of the Constitution in 1788. I am opposed and unequivocally reject the World Court because it violates and claims authority to overrule the United States Constitution. The World Court is just another nice-sounding world organization on the surface, which proclaims to do good and honorable things, but has the sinister and evil power to end the sovereignty of all nations. I am totally against a New World Order or any one-world or regional government, not simply because it is unconstitutional and would end this nation's sovereignty, but because it will end up enslaving all people except the elite. AGRICULTURE: From the 1930's until the mid-1990's, the government generally accounted for an average of just over 10% of net farm income. Only once in this period did government account for over 30% of net farm income. Yet in recent years, the share of net farm income provided by the government has risen to some four times that amount. Worse still, nearly half of all commodity payments flow to large farming operations with average household incomes of $135,000 - and the bulk of federal farm benefits are concentrated among a very few farmers. In 2001, for example, nearly three-quarters of all farm subsidies were paid out to just 10 percent of recipients. I support programs that will insure fair crop-dairy-livestock prices and a living wage for the nation's family farmers; make the transfer of family farms more equitable from one generation to the next; and preserve agricultural land by curtailing urban sprawl through the funding of land conservancy grants. Americans are often told that farm programs are designed as a 'safety net' for family farms - but the numbers tell a different story. For example, according to the Heritage Foundation in 2001, the list of recipients of federal farm payments included a number of very wealthy 'hobby farmers' like David Rockefeller - the former chairman of Chase Manhattan, former professional basketball star Scottie Pippen, media tycoon Ted Turner, and even former Enron CEO and multi-millionaire Kenneth Lay. They all received farm payments. The list also included several Fortune 500 corporations, including oil giant Chevron and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance which received $80,000 and $134,000, respectively, in 2001. I want to see a prosperous American agriculture industry, one that benefits all taxpayers, including the small family farmer. I also support stricter compliance and inspections of food and agricultural products that are imported into the country by foreign governments and companies to ensure the safety of our citizens. STEM CELL RESEARCH: Medical research to find cures for debilitating diseases like Alzheimer's and diabetes is critically important. We should do everything in our power to seek new treatments and drugs to help cure these diseases. We cannot, however, compel American taxpayers to pay for research that intentionally destroys human life, or authorizes the farming or cloning of human embryos. Embryonic stem cell research is not the only option for stem cell research. Other promising alternatives which do not destroy human life - such as cord blood stem cell research - have shown much promise without the moral and ethical questions that surround embryonic stem cell research. I support legislation banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research. I also support legislation which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: I support the concept defining Marriage as a "union between one man and one woman." I do not believe that an Amendment to the Constitution is necessary at this time. A simple federal statute defining Marriage should be sufficient. If Congress does not act, however, individual mayors or a few activist judges might be able to dictate to the entire country what does and does not constitute marriage. To impose same-sex marriage on Americans through judicial fiat flies in the face of both traditional American values and the time-honored tenets of American federalism. The states should be free, however, to establish civil unions for same-sex couples. HEALTH CARE: The way to address America's heath care problems is not through bigger government programs, litigation, regulation, or additional government spending. Indeed, these things have contributed and continue to contribute to the rising cost of health care. Another contributing factor is illegal immigration. While illegal immigration isn't generally the first thing Americans think of when they think about health care, it has a significant impact on the cost, availability and quality of health care available to Americans. The millions of uninsured illegal aliens in this country invariably get sick or injured. When they do, they seek what ends up being very expensive treatment in hospital emergency rooms - treatment federal law requires health care personnel to provide. The problem has become so acute that Congress recently allocated $1 billion in taxpayer funds to defray the costs incurred by hospitals treating illegal aliens. This is another good reason for our government to take the problem of illegal immigration seriously. I call for the establishment of an affordable health care system for the working poor. Today more than 28 million people, about a quarter of the workforce between the ages of 18 and 64, earn less than $9.04 an hour, which translates into a full-time salary of $18,800 a year -- the income that marks the federal poverty line for a family of four (table). Any definition of the working poor, of course, involves some blurry lines. Some people who make just above the $9.04 wage, often bounce around the threshold with their chaotic hours, slippery job security, and tumultuous lives. There's also the fact that about one-third work only part-time, and more than a third are 18- to 25-year-olds, who may still live at home but may eventually work their way up the ladder. Some perhaps moonlight with a second job. And others may have spouses whose incomes lift their families up. Overall, 63% of U.S. families below the federal poverty line have one or more workers, according to the Census Bureau. I believe in market based solutions to health care problems. One solution is the use of Association Health Plans or AHP's. AHP's would assist greatly in improving access to affordable health care - without creating a new big government scheme. AHPs would allow small business owners to band together through pre-existing professional associations to purchase health insurance at reduced rates. It will help to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by giving small business the same accessibility, affordability, and choice in the health care marketplace that Fortune 500 companies and unions now enjoy. Experts estimate that up to 8.5 million uninsured small business workers could gain coverage and small business owners would save up to 25 percent on health insurance enabling more businesses to provide coverage. REFORM OF THE FEDERAL COURTS: It is fair to say that our national system of checks and balances is seriously out of sync with the growing power of our federal judicial system. Federal courts are making policies that are contrary to the United States Constitution and beyond the stated powers of the courts. In areas from same-sex marriages to the confiscation of private property the courts are imposing legal dictates that are outrageous and illegal. This must stop. I urge the nomination and approval of federal justices that are committed to upholding the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution. This is especially important at a time when international organizations such as the United Nations are vigorously attempting to impose its values on all people. Recently, one Supreme Court justice claimed that it was legitimate to base a decision on the death penalty on "international norms" - in other words the United States Constitution is not the source of right and wrong but the international community (which includes dictators and tyrants) is. This is contrary to our system of government. I am also concerned by the breakdown in the process of appointing Justices. The United States Senate should hold time-limited hearings and follow through with up and down votes on all presidential nominees. I also support a public debate on the proposal to limit the time Justices should be able to serve on all Federal Courts. The rule of law must be re-established in our society. And getting back to basics is the only way we can accomplish this task. The United States has become the most litigious society on earth. This has led to an explosion of frivolous law suits that are tying up our courts and costing society billions of dollars. I believe tort reform must be a priority objective. We must bring sanity back to an out of control system. Many jury rewards are so excessive that we support reasonable limits on punitive damages. HATE CRIME LEGISLATION: I am unalterably opposed to all so-called 'hate crime' laws whether they are federal, state, county, or municipal. The elusive element of 'hate' as a significant factor in the commission of a particular crime is something that can best be determined by God; not by Man. More importantly, it is a direct attack on our Freedom of Speech. Hate crime laws make certain types of speech a federal offense, allowing federal "thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and local government. Such interference is blatantly unconstitutional. Proposed federal laws would require every state to pass and enforce "anti-hate" laws, making it a federal crime to express bias against specifically federally protected groups. Some hate laws have been interpreted to mean documents like the Bible are hate literature and preaching from it is hate speech. Nowhere was this more clearly shown than in England under a similar law, where two men who called Islam "wicked" were indicted, and now face seven years in prison. The British law blatantly says "truth" cannot be used as a defense. REPEAL OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT: There is one little understood institution in America whose power over our economy dwarfs that of any other institution: The Federal Reserve System. Whenever the czars at the Fed have a meeting, Presidents, industrial giants, investors, home buyers, everyone with an interest in our economy awaits their verdict with bated breath. If they decide to raise interest rates, politicians and industries could fall, homes will not be purchased, jobs will be lost. If they decide to lower the rates, officeholders, industries and consumers may prosper, but the inflation rate may increase. That's a lot of power and responsibility for a handful of people whose names would only be recognized by a small number of Americans. The Federal Reserve System was conceived in 1910 by a group of notorious robber barons at a then-secret meeting at J. P. Morgan's estate on Jekyl Island, Georgia. After three years of political machinations, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The bill was promoted publicly as a plan to reform the nation's monetary system and stabilize the currency by taking control of it out of the hands of big bankers. In reality, the Act was written by the bankers for the purpose of solidifying their control over our currency. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the people of the United States specifically granted to Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Wisely, we never gave them the constitutional power to delegate this money-creating and regulating responsibility to any private group. Yet this is exactly what the Federal Reserve Act did. It created a cartel of private banks, managed by a Board appointed for long terms of office by the President of the United States. Most people in America believe that it is the federal government that issues our currency, when in fact, this group of banks became the sole issuer of U.S. money, with full control over its quantity and thus its value. It has been the financing agency for Congress' unprecedented deficit spending on the welfare state and war. Some believe that it has intentionally manipulated the economy in order to influence the results of our presidential elections. Our government doesn't need the help of any private banking cartel to manage money. We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and return control of our currency to Congress. Then we need a serious national discussion about how real currency reform can be achieved, giving consideration to restoring the gold backing to our money. As long as the Federal Reserve has control over our nation's money, Congress' control of the purse-strings will not have the benefits the Founders intended. WELFARE REFORM: The breakdown of the American Family has been caused by many things, some of which are outside of the ability of the government to control. However, government policy, especially as it pertains to the welfare system, is one of the primary agents behind the deterioration of families across the United States. The current welfare system, as designed:
Recommendations:
BANKING AND REAL ESTATE: I am opposed to proposed Regulations by the Federal Reserve (which is made up of a group of large banks) and the Treasury that would permit big banking conglomerates to enter into the real estate brokerage and property management businesses If adopted, these regulations will lead to:
Large banking conglomerates are looking to assemble a few nationwide organizations to handle the very local business of buying and selling homes. If this is successful, consumer interests will suffer.
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: America must develop a coherent technology and market-oriented solution to environmental conservation and energy consumption. It is possible to have a healthy environment and a healthy economy at the same time. In the short term, we must Increase domestic supplies of energy. Current law prohibits exploration and drilling in many promising areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Even where drilling is not prohibited outright, it is subject to a host of costly and complex requirements that hamper energy production. Congress should open up access to these untapped domestic resources and streamline the regulatory burdens, both to increase production and to lessen the nation's dependence on imports and vulnerability to disruptions in supply. The longer Members of Congress restrict energy production at home, the more they send American jobs and money overseas to make up the difference, and the more vulnerable America becomes to politically unstable supplies. The United States has the world's most advanced technology, toughest safeguards, and best workforce. More domestic energy production, not less, will strengthen the nation's economy. Promote fuel diversity, so that the market-not government regulations and taxpayer subsidies-determines energy winners and losers. Coal, natural gas, nuclear power, oil, solar, wind and other renewable energy sources should all be included in the mix of fuel resources. MANDATORY FUNDING FOR VETERAN'S HEALTH CARE SERVICES: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: I am opposed to any resurrection of the "The Fairness Doctrine," the 1940's law that effectively censored political talk radio for many years, because it is a violation of the First Amendment and limits Free Speech. Congressional Democrats will bring it back if they have their way. The real issue here is not what you "are able to" see or hear, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's about placing limitations on the Freedoms you currently have to "choose" what to see or hear. In the 1940's and 50's, Americans had few choices with only three major networks and there was some validity to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Americans have an almost unlimited choice of where to get their information: regular TV, cable TV, regular radio, satellite radio, internet, web-blogs, etc., which makes the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary. I believe that it was the collapse of the radio station "Air America" a Liberal talk station, that has led to this attempt to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. It appears that if Liberalism can't compete in the world of ideas, then the solution is to pass a law that forces radio stations to air their views. The right of Free Speech guarantees that people or organizations have the right to express their ideas without danger of censorship, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that people or organizations with different views must be provided with a meeting hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express their ideas. Those who value the First Amendment must oppose the Fairness Doctrine as a serious threat to their Freedom of Speech. I HOPE YOU FOUND THIS POSITION PAPER INFORMATIVE. PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITE AT: www.johnwallaceforcongress.com and GOD BLESS AMERICA!  |
|
This document maintained by American Citizens
for John Wallace |
