If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will serve to the best of my ability.
Where I Stand
I am a conserative. That does not mean I am a Republican. I will not support a Republican if he or she does something against the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I do not follow a party. The founding fathers feared political parties, and with good reason. I make my own decisions. Anyway, here's a list of some of my political stances:
This is not a complete list. I will add more issues as I come across them (and more importantly, as I have time to add them).
All people have the right to life. Life begins at conception. Abortion is an abomination to God and man. Abortion is not a right. If you want a choice not to have a child, make it before you generate a child, not after.
Affirmative Action is an insult to persons of all colors, creeds, and nationalities. It says to some people: "You can't get a job on your own. You're not good enough." It says to others: "You can't work at this restaurant. You're not an accepted race." It should be abolished. All persons, regardless of color, creed, or nationality, should have equal chances to obtain employment or attend a public university, Affirmative Action hurts everyone, especially those it claims to help. It should be abolished.
I believe national borders should be tightly monitored. It should be difficult, if not impossible, to arrive here from an enemy country. Any non-citizen who is from an enemy state should not be allowed into the country without asylum proceedings. Our borders should be staffed by competent professionals who can be fired if they fail to do the job properly. A national government should protect the rights of its own citizens above the extended rights of non-citizens. Human rights should be guaranteed to all, but other rights should be guaranteed first to citizens, and if feasible, then to non-citizens.
Churches of all denominations and faiths need protection against government. This was the purpose of the First Amendment. As Thomas Paine wrote, "As to religion, I hold it to be the duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith." Government can be improved by the influence of religion's desire for justice and truth, but religion can only be harmed by the intrusion of government. The government should not make any law establishing federally supported churches, nor should it make laws infringing on the rights of the individuals of whom the churches consist.
Human life is precious. We should be very hesitant to take it from anyone. However, there are crimes for which a person should die. The Bible is very clear that there are certain things punishable by death.
However, because of the current process in the united States leading up to an execution, it is more economical (and better for those wrongfully accused) to hold a person in prison for the rest of his or her natural life.
"Death With Dignity"/"right-to-die"
This issue should never have become a political issue. Doctors have no business killing their patients. To do so is to commit murder, and doctors who do so should be tried and convicted for murder. Human life is precious. There is no "right" to death.
More pressing, however, is the insidiousness of the idea that is behind euthanasia as a political issue. It is a short step from terminally ill to simply old and feeble. And another short step to simply old, or ugly, or a thousand other things. It is a process of Satan.
Serving one's nation by protecting it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is an honor. Not everyone, however, is suitable for military service. Military service is a right. Military service is not the duty of every citizen. Just as different parts of the human body have different functions, so different people have different talents and abilities. Some citizens defend their country by taking up arms against its enemies. Others defend their country by keeping its economy strong. Still others, like George M. Cohan, defend their country through the power of words or music. Everyone has something to give in service of his or her country, and it takes more than soldiers to keep a country strong against all its enemies.
Additionally, I believe an all-volunteer force is more efficient and better able to carry out its missions than a force selected by draft. Citizens need to be more thoughtful about what they demand of their military, so that it will always be an honor for those who choose to sacrifice their lives in service to their country.
I do not, first of all, believe cocaine, speed, and other drugs of this kind should be made legal. Driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal, and few people oppose DUI laws, because driving while intoxicated very often causes great amounts of harm to innocent
people. Cocaine and other such drugs should remain illegal for the same reason.
Unfortunately, our current drug laws are doing little, if anything, to curb the tide of illegal drugs flowing into this country. We are spending too many resources on attempts to curtail the supply and not enough on curbing the demand. We should document very briefly everything we've done in the "War on Drugs," decide which actions have helped in which areas, improve and reimpliment those actions, and scrap the parts which are not actually helping.
Education should be handled at the State level (or lower). Each state should fund and oversee its own education system. The federal government is given no authority in the Constitution to implement a Department of Education, so this should not exist on the federal level.
Federal control of the education system is as dangerous to the rights and liberties of American citizens as a standing British army was. It puts control over the minds of tomorrow's leaders in the hands of a very few
America's schools should teach the reading and writing of the English language, mathematical skills up to geometry and algebra, hard sciences (based on facts, not on personal agendas), geography, history, and nutrition. Nearly all other subjects should exist only at the secondary level, as elective studies.
God gave mankind stewardship over the world. It is our job to be good stewards. The environmental movement, however, has little to do with protecting the environment. It has more to do with expanding the power of the federal government and destroying
the right of personal property. Property, by the way, was the original third item on the list of inalienable rights listed in the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America (better known as the Declaration of Independence): Life, Liberty, and Property. It was changed to the nebulous "Pursuit of Happiness" to appease those States which relied heavily upon slaves.
Private industry run on private property tends to do a reasonable job of being a good steward. Logging companies plant trees where they log. Being a good steward makes good business sense, so businesses do it.
Not all companies are good stewards, but we shouldn't punish an entire industry (or multiple industries) for the wrongs of a few companies. I firmly believe that companies which dump hundreds of gallons of toxins into streams or onto the bare ground should be forced to be clean, but this is not the aim of the environmental movement. Today's environmental movement (in its executive structure) is nothing less than communism.
We should not clear-cut our forests or dump large amounts of toxic chemicals into the groundwater, but at the same time, we need to fight the encroachment of government on our rights. The environmental movement today needs to change. It needs to become a movement for responsible stewardship of the environment rather than what it is today:
a radical agenda to remove rights from humanity and humanity from the face of the earth.
I believe a person should be able to hold a firearm steady and hit the intended target. Otherwise: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Given the context of the wording, I would say that the arms indicated are guns but also include such individual weapons as knives, spears, and clubs. Given the context of historical interpretation, which has always treated this wording as referring to firearms, I would say this is limited to any and all firearms. Given the context of common sense in conjunction with these distinct definitions, I would say it includes and is limited to any weapon a single person can carry and expect to control with regard to target accuracy. This means that if one relatively strong man can carry it, and that the same man, being practiced with the use thereof, can hit a target from a reasonable distance (reasonable distance being dependent upon the weapon type (e.g. the reasonable distance for a knife being arm's length, the reasonable distance for an assault rifle being somewhere upwards of twenty feet (I don't know the exact distance at which such a weapon becomes unusable)) without the reasonable expectation of damage to a non-target within a space of one to ten feet from the target, then that is an arm covered by the second amendment. This would preclude, in times of peace and in absence of a tyrant, such things as grenades, rocket launchers, bombs, and nuclear devices from the legitimate possession by a civilian. The measurements given are estimates and should not be taken as hard numbers with which to raise any dispute.
Hemp can be made into thousands of useful products, from strong, lightweight concrete to clothing to plastics to oils to stronger, more recyclable paper. Industrial hemp should be legalized. Any idiot can tell a hemp farm from a pot plantation. "Hemp growers can not hide marijuana plants in their fields. Marijuana is grown widely spaced to maximize leaves. Hemp is grown in tightly-spaced rows to maximize stalk and is usually harvested before it goes to seed." --NAIHC website
Some people claim that the world is overcrowded. This is clearly in error. As an illustration: The city of Jacksonville, Florida, is over twenty-three billion
(23,417,856,000) square feet in area. Every person on this planetall seven billioncould fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida. Each and every man, woman, and child would get, on average, a little more than 3.9 square feet, and that's just one city. Terra is NOT
overcrowded. There is plenty of space on this planet for everyone. The idea of overcrowding is just a ploy to get people to
give up their right to have children.
Subsidies have their place, but our government is subsidizing too freely, too long, and too much. Subsidizing small, existing companies so that they can expand, as a one-time action in any one company, is useful. It allows small companiesthose whose products are in demand beyond the capacity of the suppliersto expand enough that they can afford further expansion on their own.
Subsidies should not be annual grants to large companies which do not need funding for expansion. The government of the United States should not, for example, be paying the advertising costs of such large corporations as McDonald's™ and Pepsi™. These companies don't need subsidies.
The government also should not be subsidizing unneccesary products which cannot be produced profitably. Tobacco is not a neccesary product, and if it can't be grown profitably without subsidies, let some of those who grow it find another crop or another business.
See Davy Crockett on Social Spending
(will open in a new window). I am a Bible-believing Christian, and the Bible contains more than 2000 verses commanding us to take care of the poor, but our Constitution gives the government no authority to perform acts of charity. Clearly, we should perform acts of charity, but we should do so individually or through charitable organizations. We should not do so through the halls of Congress.
This page was last updated on 2016.7.14b.