Video Issues
(Click Picture)

Service Pay?
(Less than iHOP Waitress)


Money As Debt


The Money Masters


Freedom to Fascism

 Care to comment on the MEG's take? Let Us Know! (What you think)

With all of the griping and finger-pointing I do regarding politicians, (and government) it would seem hypocritical if I did not have to answer the same questions the candidates are supposed to answer. With this in mind (even though many candidates refused to answer) here's my stand on how a presidential candidate should respond and the government should be run.

Since I am not actually running for president, I'm going to feel free to elaborate on my answers. The actual questionnaire the candidates fill out is limited regarding the length of any explanatory remarks. Sucks to be them.

Please keep in mind that this is pretty much the first time I've ever really tried to address these questions in more than a few lines or less than a few pages per question. It's much harder than you think. If you'd like to give it a try yourself, we have archived the original .pdf questionnaire for you to download and have at.

2008 PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL COURAGE TEST

Many people will be shocked by the proposals I posit here. The thing is, when it comes to governments, money truly IS the root of all evil. The more money you give to a government and the freer hand you allow that government in spending it, the worse a government becomes. We, as a Nation, need to reign these people in, tighten the purse strings, cut off the gusher of "federal largess" and make sure our politicians understand that we will brook no hanky-panky when it comes to spending OUR money.

For starters, at no point or level of office should an elected official EVER be paid more than the mean average of their constituents. Next, The government needs to get out of the business of business, and back to the business of governing.


Abortion Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding abortion.
___ a) Abortions should always be illegal.
___ b) Abortions should always be legal.
___ c) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester.
___ d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
___ e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
___ f) Dilation and extraction or “partial-birth” abortion procedures should be legal.
___ g) Medicare, Medicaid, or federal subsidies should be prohibited from being used on abortion procedures.
_X__ h) Other or expanded principles:
I personally am against all abortions, with the possible exception of rape induced pregnancies. Even then I hesitate to kill a child for the sins of the father.

Yet, I am also personally repulsed by the implied authority of a government to impose its rule over the physical body of a lawful Citizen. I do not believe the government has a right to ban ALL abortion, but that it does have a right - and a responsibility - to protect innocent life when it can.

If one set of criteria may be used to define death, could it also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Either of these would be acceptable to me. Which would also seem to address the question of whether or not a machine (or series of machines) can be used to extend life-functions against the previously expressed will of the patient or the patient's family.

If you make a baby through your own actions (willful sexual activity) then you bear the responsibility to bring that child to term - at which point you may put it up for adoption. Any abortion (or negligent actions resulting in miscarriage) after brainwave activity begins MUST be considered MURDER and should be prosecuted as such. One possible exemption would be if the pregnancy would absolutely result in the death (not simply the  'inconvenience') of the mother before the baby could exist outside the womb on it's own.

While a difficult call, if it is certain that NEITHER mother nor baby could survive the pregnancy, then whichever person stands the best chance of survival must be given that opportunity. In most cases, the benefit of the doubt would have to be given in favor of the unborn child. This decision would be court-ordered with a judge and a panel of 3-5 doctors reviewing the case data and coming to a UNANIMOUS decision. If all 6 agree that the pregnancy should be terminated to save the life of the mother, then and ONLY THEN and ONLY with the CONSENT of the MOTHER, could the pregnancy be terminated in the most HUMANE way possible.

Budgetary, Spending, and Tax Issues :
Using the key, indicate what federal funding levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category, you can use a number more than once.

KEY
1 = Greatly Increase
2 = Slightly Increase
3 = Maintain Status
4 = Slightly Decrease
5 = Greatly Decrease
6 = Eliminate

1) Budget Priorities
_6__ a) Agriculture
_2__ a2) Agricultural SCIENCE (Not in original survey)
_6__ b) Arts
_3__ c) Defense
_6__ d) Education
_3__ e) Environment
_6__ f) FEMA
_3__ g) Homeland security
_6__ h) International aid
_1__ i) Law enforcement
_3__ j) Medical research
_3__ k) National parks
_6__ l) Public health services
_3__ m) Scientific research
_1__ n) Space exploration programs
_2__ o) Transportation and highway infrastructure
_6__ p) United Nations
_6__ q) Welfare
_6__ r) Other or expanded categories: IRS, Federal Reserve

The federal government does not have the right to spend a single cent wrested from one person to pay for the benefits of another. Only private Citizens have that right (and some may say moral responsibility). Parsing words over what "the General Welfare" means in the Constitution is petty. It doesn't mean stealing (forcing money) from one Citizen to benefit others (no matter how noble the cause).

a. & a2.: Agricultural subsidies must end. Paying farmers not to grow something is ridiculous, anti-capitalist, anti-farmer and bad for the economy. What we need to do is NOT support prices - the market will do that - but make farming more efficient and better for the ecology through agricultural science and a return to the FAMILY farm. The corporate farms won't last long and will eagerly sell the land back to families when they find the government spigot of subsidies and price-supports are cut off.

b.) Art is good. Government support of art can be vocal, but it should not include financing in any way. If people like the art an artist is producing, they will buy it and PRIVATE patrons will support it. The limit of government support of art should be the building and management of museums for ALL the public to enjoy - this is "general" welfare, in support of the arts. Paying artists to ply their trade is INDIVIDUAL welfare and should be immediately abolished and banned forever. It is not the government's money and they do not have the right to spend it like that.

d.) Education IS in the vital interest of the general welfare - but FEDERAL involvement should be limited to setting standards, and regulating access and implementation of those standards, NOT doling out dollars.

Schools are paid for by property taxes. The current system of State and FEDERAL funding HAS NOT improved the quality of schools or education but has only made things more complicated and expensive (administratively). It has also created and supported a powerful teacher's lobby to muck up all manner of things - not the least of which is the quality of education.

As to educational standards - the first standard should be regarding the quality of TEACHERS. Teachers should be required to pass minimum standards (High School Levels) in ALL educational disciplines before being granted a license to educate our children. After all, how can one expect a teacher to educate children when they, themselves, cannot even pass the general standards they are attempting to teach?

In their announced educational field, they should be required to test out at Associate level (Preschool and Elementary School) or Bachelor level (High School) at a minimum. Masters degree and Doctoral degree would not be required, but would garner higher wages.

- the next standard would require testing for advancement of students from Elementary school to High School, and to receive a High School Diploma. This testing WOULD NOT be done by the schools or the states, but by the Federal Government. Students would report to a government testing facility and would take the test in monitored cubicles, one subject at a time. The student could take as long as they need to complete each subject - no time limit - but the entire test would not have to be taken at once. If they only wanted to test out on one subject per week, that would be fine, but NO ADVANCEMENT or DIPLOMA would be granted until the entire test is taken and passed.

The test could also be taken at any time by the student - they would not have to wait if they are an accelerated student. Testing between grades would not be required by Federal standards, but not prohibited either.

- The final standard would be in relation to merit pay for Teachers. Better teachers should be paid more. All teachers should be required to maintain a minimum level of education and performance, but those who excel should be recognized and rewarded for their efforts and achievements.

As to regulations:
The above standards would be the first regulation imposed and monitored.

All STATE SPONSORED (Public) schools would be required to standardize. Failure to meet these standards would require MANDATORY expenditures to bring them up to speed. The State WOULD NOT be allowed to close a school, rather than bring it up to code. If the State had been operating that school in a substandard way up to that point, they will be required to operate it according to the regulations. (And the State officials responsible for previous conditions should have their performances audited, possibly resulting in legal charges being brought.)

Home schools and private schools would be exempt from the following regulations, but would receive NO State funds and students must still adhere to advancement standards. Private and Home schools would be exempt from corporate taxes, provided they meet (or exceed) these minimum standards:

1.) Schools must have adequate lighting, heating, cooling, and maintenance.
2.) School Uniforms required - Teachers and Administrators, included. Supplied to those who can demonstrate a need for assistance. No uniform, no admittance to the building. Uniforms reduce (if not eliminate) many 'economic' prejudices, and has a tendency to bring everyone closer together. It may stifle (to some degree) personal expression and taste - but the focus of school attendance is EDUCATION, not style.  It will also help to identify persons who are not authorized to be on the school grounds.
3.) Main entrances MANNED by trained security personnel, secondary exits (locked from the outside, no handle, alarmed pushbar on inside) video monitored by dedicated personnel. All elementary and secondary campuses CLOSED, with outdoor areas fenced. High School campuses also closed, but advanced grades/students may be permitted monitored passes for work or outside studies. GATED and MANNED entry into school grounds. No unauthorized vehicles.
4.) Adequate assigned adult hall and assembly area monitors wherever students gather when not in classes - physically capable of handling emergencies and breaking up altercations. Video monitoring of all other areas.
5.) No electrical devices (cell phones, blackberries, I-pods, radios, walkmans, laptops, etc.) in classrooms EXCEPT a calculator which cannot be used for anything other than a calculator.
6.) Curriculum based upon federal standards and distributed via Internet, free of charge to ALL schools (including home and private schools) No mandatory sex education requirement, but optionally available. Mandatory "Comparative Religion" and "Comparative Culture" courses.
7.) Maximum ratio of students: teacher = 20:1. Larger classrooms will require 1 TA per 10 additional students.
8.) School breakfast and lunch provided for ALL students at cost. No sugar dominant or any corn syrup products. No soda or candy machines. No fast food. Low income children may be given free breakfast and/or lunch upon demonstrated need.
9.) Mandatory physical education classes for all students to include self defense and safety regimens. Students with verifiable MEDICAL conditions may substitute therapeutic PE. Students with developmental problems (weight, social, psychological) may take separate PE designed to build the skills necessary to "fit in" until their confidence level/ability improves. Students WILL have the option, on their own recognizance, of opting out of separate PE and joining the regular classes at any time, but ALL STUDENTS must attend SOME form of PE.
10.) Cities/Districts will maintain at least ONE special needs school for developmentally disabled public students, and at least ONE "detention" school for behavioral disabled students. ALL suspensions and expulsions will defer students to the "detention" school for the duration of their suspension or expulsion - no throw-away kids. These "detention" schools will be segregated by sex and maintain an 8:1 student-teacher ratio, and include etiquette and emotional management courses, and problem specific counseling instead of PE or free periods. The key to detention schools will be to eliminating distractions and focusing on the individual students' ability to overcome their academic difficulties. All kids have the ability to learn.
11.) Students must maintain a minimum "C" grade point average in all classes to be eligible to participate in extracurricular school activities. No waivers. A return to the "A, B, C, D, I and F" grading system (based on percentage of scoring, without 'curves') is essential.
12.) Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence, without parole, for sexual abuse of a child or intentional physical abuse of a child resulting in injury, to include lifetime revocation of teaching license. Physical abuse of a child will not include injury inflicted while attempting to subdue a student in the process of assault, battery, intimidation or physical destruction of property.

f.) FEMA:
FEMA is redundant, with the Army and Navy engineering Corps capable (More capable) of handling or preventing infrastructure damage. It is a dough-baby (cash) for government contracts to preferred companies at extravagant fees for subpar results. The States can and should handle internal administrative duties regarding disasters. They live there and they know what is needed and how things work. Federal assistance should be limited to knowledge and expertise, and never ever EVER financial assistance for ANYONE. It's not the government's money to give away, it's the peoples money to be used solely for defense and administration. Defense does not mean insurance after the fact, but prevention and interdiction of an attacking force, or protection (of life - not private property) from a destructive force.

h.) International Aid. We are not the world's policeman, nor the world's hospital, nor the world's welfare provider. The US Government does not create wealth, it only allows for the creation of wealth by its Citizens. The money the US Government gets belongs to the US Citizens, not the government. ONLY CITIZENS may act as a charity, although the US Government may act as a facilitator or distributor of the gifts of charity from private Citizens, Citizens Groups or Corporations - upon request and delivery of funds and/or goods. NO PUBLIC MONIES should ever be spent on charity, welfare, insurance or other schemes designed to benefit some people by wresting funds from others.

The government needs to get out of the business of business, and back to the business of governing.

To be sure, we do not wish to be portrayed as heartless capitalists. The US Military may be directed to aid (to the best of their ability) any country in need in times of disaster that asks for assistance. Combined with PRIVATE contributions, I have faith that America will NEVER be considered "stingy" or "miserly."

American private giving during the (Indonesian) tsunami crisis was significant: one month after the tsunami, it was over $400 million, outpacing the U.S. government pledge of $350 million.

The pundits pooh-pooh this amount, claiming that, as a percentage of net worth, our contributions were "small" in comparison to those of Western European and Scandinavian citizens. What they fail to mention is that those people have cradle-to-grave "services" that American Citizens must pay for on their own. THOSE people get raped by their governments for poorly delivered "services,"  though they constantly tout how much better and more moral they are than us.

Well, facts are facts. The $400 million private US dollars exceeded the contributions of all other individual country's private AND government donations combined. The $750 million dollars (not to mention the US military Aid) exceeded the contributions of all other countries combined.

The pundits can kiss my grits. We are a compassionate and generous people and we do it because WE CARE, not because our government wants to "show-up" any other government by stealing the fruits of our labor for redistribution elsewhere.

i.) Law Enforcement: Increase the amount GREATLY for law enforcement?
By this, I mean increase greatly the ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. More recruitment, better equipment, better and more extensive training - a return to the "Protect & Serve" model rather than the "respond & mop up" mode our police forces have been forced to operate under. Still working on it... 

l.) Public Health Services:
Online information and advice (free) should be increased, but medicare and medicaid should be abolished along with any/all programs that benefit individuals using tax dollars wrested from private Citizens. That being said....

US Government Medical Corps:
The US government will pay for 100% schooling at the school of their choice for any qualified American Citizen in any medical related field. HOWEVER, upon graduation, the student must immediately report to the office of a government medical facilitator to begin working off the loan. During the pay-back period, medical personnel will earn $8/hour (adjusted for inflation) take-home pay, (while racking up pay at the equivalent civilian rate) with the remaining amount going towards repayment of the loan. Once the ENTIRE loan is satisfied, the recipient is free to go into private practice. Participating hospitals and clinics will get a 5% rebate on the employee's pay, encouraging hospitals to hire Medical Corps personnel.

How will it work?
Students will work out of existing private hospitals (all public hospitals will be turned over to the States, charity organizations, or sold to private contactors) and students will be required to find employment therein, in the usual way - negotiating pay scales and benefits, etc., privately. The hospitals will issue payment to the US government and a payment copy to the employee. The US Government will issue an hourly check to the employee.

Penalties for fraudulent activities will require TRIPLE DAMAGES from both the employer and the employee, and reset the payback clock to $0. Failure to report for duty will place the student in jeopardy of serving the entire period of payback inside a Federal Prison. Room and board will be provided.

It will be illegal to refuse emergency medical/dental/psychiatric treatment to anyone, however for non-emergency complaints and elective medical services, it is entirely within the rights of a private hospital to refer a non-paying client to a free clinic. Student employees will be required to spend 1 day per week, unpaid, volunteering at a State, Federal or Charity sponsored free clinic, for the duration of their payback period. The student may accrue up to one week of volunteer duty before having to serve at a free clinic until they are back on schedule. This service is in lieu of interest being charged on their student loans.

Citizens who have paid Medicare/Medicaid payments will be reimbursed, in full, with a one-time payment and the program will be cancelled. Without doubt, some private insurance company will pick up the slack.

The government does not have the Constitutional authority or responsibility to operate an insurance business. Doing so creates an enforced tax upon working Citizens for payment of benefits to those who may or may not contribute to the system. It forces productive Citizens to participate in a scheme which they may or may not wish to be a part of. It infringes on the rights of PRIVATE businesses to conduct their enterprise, and presents the onus of National debt as well as the possibility of financial fraud/scandal within the government bureaucracies.

A private insurer creates jobs, invests the funds collected in order to make a profit, and provides better quality of care - when properly regulated. Regulation of insurance is the sole responsibility and the extent of the government's authority regarding participation with charities and insurance programs. The role of the government is to see that its Citizens are not being abused by fraudulent, frivolous, negligent, coercive or abusive business practices. It does this through REGULATION, not operation.

The government needs to get out of the business of business, and back to the business of governing.

n) Space exploration programs:
The immediate commencement of a self-sustaining moon base should be undertaken in conjunction with preparations for exploration of Mars as a secondary base. This planet isn't getting any less crowded and we MUST find ways to relieve pressure on Earth's resources before famine, plague war or other natural disaster does it for us.

While this may appear to be a contradiction of "The government needs to get out of the business of business, and back to the business of governing," the survival of the HUMAN RACE may depend upon our expansion into space. Currently, because the government was in such a hurry to one-up the Soviets and so unwilling to relinquish control to private enterprise, the government holds nearly all of the expertise. If I were president, I would open up the non-military aspects of space travel, exploration and development research to private enterprise. I would grant US Corporations 10 years of tax-free operations for anything concerning this endeavor. Within 10 years, an American Corporation would be established on the moon or, at the very least, in space.

o) Transportation and highway infrastructure:
High speed underground and elevated mag-lev trains should be built mirroring the interstate system. In the cities (although this would not be a Federal program) public transportation systems should be built - possibly using federal loans (and I mean interest paying loans to be paid back - not forgiven) when the systems are completed. Same thing with the interstate trains - Fed will build it, then will sell it to private enterprise with an interest bearing loan. The sale amount would be for the cost of construction by the Corps of Engineers.

p) United Nations:
The UN is a corrupt, anti-American, socialist boondoggle. The US should immediately withdraw and forthwith ignore this entity. Kick them out of the country and sell the building for condos, or turn it into a National museum. 

q) Welfare:
Welfare is for charities, not governments. The only acceptable alternative would be a Workfare system similar to the Medical Corps. US Government could shelter, feed and clothe citizens at fair market prices, and have them work it off through private enterprise. The government needs to get out of the business of business, and back to the business of governing. The government would be Constitutionally constrained from establishing a "Government Workforce" because it would be an infringement upon Private enterprise. However, a Workfare Corps similar to the Medical Corps (see above) could be established as a partnership with local businesses. Fifty percent of (privately) negotiated wages would go to the worker, fifty percent to pay the government for their training, housing, basic food and clothing (no designer clothes, candies, cigarettes, alcohol or other non-essentials) until the loans are paid off. The better the worker does, the more they will get paid, the better their opportunities will become, and the sooner they will be able to get out of Workfare.

r) Other or expanded categories: IRS, Federal Reserve
The IRS needs to be put back in it's place - collecting taxes on PROFITS (income) from business or trade entities, not private Citizens who don't earn a profit by the equitable exchange of labor for pay.

The only way for the Government to be able to afford to do this is to RESUME THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY for managing the Nations monetary system. In December of 1913, the US Congress and President Wilson reneged on their Constitutional responsibility and turned control of the Nation's monetary system over to a group of PRIVATE bankers incorporated under the moniker of "Federal Reserve." The federal reserve prints money after making an unsecured entry into a (now computerized) ledger, charges the FACE VALUE of a bill that cost them pennies to produce, and adds interest to that "loan" when it turns the bills over to the US Treasury for circulation.

PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE SECTOR SURVEY ON COST CONTROL
A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
VOLUME I
APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETING ON JANUARY 15, 1984

January 12, 1984
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President...

...Mr. President, you have been so correct in resisting attempts to balance the budget by increasing taxes. The tax load on the average American family is already at counterproductive levels with the underground economy having now grown to an estimated $500 billion per year, costing about $100 billion in lost Federal tax revenues per year.

The size of the underground economy is understandable when one considers that median family income taxes have increased from $9 in 1948 to $2,218 in 1983, or by 246 times. This is runaway taxation at its worst.

Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100 percent of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for seven days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

* One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
* Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
* With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

Of course, this comes as no surprise to most viewers of this web site. The Income tax was CREATED to enrich the bankers for taking over the chore of stabilizing the American monetary system. It is how Congress manages to pay for the "service" the Fed provides. But things have gotten out of hand.

The Constitution was written with SPECIFIC methods of controlling government expansion (which have been diabolically eluded through the use of wordplay at the behest of lawyerly folk(wolves) in political(sheep's) clothing) through taxation and monetary policy. While some of the founding fathers approved of heavy taxation, a central bank system, and the issuance of paper money (indeed, most of the population were in favor of paper money), the wiser - and more importantly - the more influential founders were adamantly opposed to it.

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, US Constitution:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.
[Amended: Amendment XIV(Slavery), Amendment XIX (Women), XXVI (Age)]

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1, US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Please note that neither of these taxing provisions have been amended.

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5-6, US Constitution:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

Please note that neither of these Monetary provisions have been amended.

Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4, US Constitution:
No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The requirement of apportioning direct taxes among the several States is the only provision of the Constitution that appears twice in the document. It is this very provision that is today being abused by the Congress & the IRS.

The "Tax & Spend" Congress point to the 16th Amendment as giving them the authority to disregard the direct taxation of wages, but taken in their totality, the arguments for and against this interpretation - even by the Courts - do nothing but confuse the subject.

Here's my point of view:
When a person works, they are expending [spending] energy. They are expending [spending] knowledge. They are implementing [using/spending] their abilities. From these expenditures, they are creating a product or service.

Energy(E) + Knowledge(K) + Ability(A) = Product/Service(P/S)

This product or service has a value equal to (E+K+A). When a person works for themselves, producing a product or service FOR THEMSELVES (i.e., gardening to produce vegetables for dinner), the government declares the product to have no taxable value (which is correct, as there was no gain or profit (income) - the E+K+A expended to produce the P/S is EXACTLY equal to the value of the P/S.

Yet magically, when this same person decides to exchange the P/S with another person, for money, the very same P/S that had no taxable value before, suddenly HAS a taxable value.

Why should this be so? How can it be possible? Is the money worth more than the P/S? You can't EAT money, you can only exchange it for other items that you can eat. You can't WEAR money, you can only exchange it for other items that you can wear. You can't use it to pound a nail - but you can exchange it for a hammer that WILL pound a nail.

MONEY, in and of itself (especially paper money), HAS NO INHERENT VALUE - except as an easy transfer medium representing a P/S previously produced (that does have value) and exchanged for money.

It would be a difficult world to live in if we had to perform a service or produce a product on the spot when we wanted to exchange what we can do with our (E+K+A) for what somebody else can do with their (E+K+A):

Suppose all you knew how to do was create anvils, but you are hungry and you want to exchange your product for food? Lugging an anvil to the farmer for exchange would be one way of doing it - but what if the farmer doesn't WANT an anvil? What if the Farmer wants a horse?
So now you lug your anvil to the fellow who knows how breed & train horses - but he doesn't want an anvil, he has too many of them already. What he wants is paint for his barn.
So you lug your anvil to the lady who mixes paint (and by now you are REALLY getting hungry - not to mention tire of lugging that damned anvil all over the place.) The paint lady looks at you like you were crazy. "What do I want an anvil for, she asks?" I need someone to fix my paint mixing machine!
So you trudge on over to the mechanics shop, lugging the anvil with you and dreaming of being a feather pillow merchant. "Nice anvil." The mechanic notes. "What will you take for it?"
"I need you to fix the paint lady's machine so she will give me paint." you say.
The mechanic scratches his chin and ponders the idea. He's been to the paint lady's to examine her machine - but he didn't need any paint and she couldn't pay in anything else. He knows what it will take to fix the machine, and determines the anvil is a FAIR TRADE for his (E+K+A). "Fair enough!" He says to you, and you both go to the paint lady's place.
Now you get to rest and wait while he fixes her machine - she won't pay until she is satisfied with the repairs. A few hours later you have more paint than you can shake a stick at. You wonder if it's good to eat - a small sample convinces you it's not.
So you lug the paint back to the farmer as night begins to fall. You forgot to ask what color the paint was or what color the farmer preferred. Luckily, he's partial to chartreuse.
He asks you what kind of horse you are looking for and, by God, you never thought to ask the farmer. You mention it to the horse trader, and he knows exactly what the farmer was looking for (lucky for you) and hauls out a fine plough mare in exchange for the paint. As you prepare to mount the nag, the horse trader places a hand on your shoulder...
"Wouldn't try THAT, if I were you." He says. "She ain't partial to being ridden. Plow a field all day - both ways - but won't tolerate anything on her back."
Sighing, you take her by the halter and begin the long walk to the farm, stomach rumbling as the sun begins to set. You arrive at the farmer's place around midnight, half dazed with hunger and fatigue. The farmer is not pleased to be wakened, but he likes the horse. "Hope you got a powerful hunger for rutabagas," he says, "because that's all I know how to grow... by the way - you got a little paint on your chin, there."

Taxing the productive capabilities of a human being is the same things as placing a monetary value on that person's life. It is disgusting and amoral. The government cannot put a monetary value upon a Citizen's life or their productive capability. To do so makes that Citizen an "object," a "commodity," and strips them of their humanity. The personal income tax must END! If the government wants to use (as opposed to abuse) their Constitutional authority to tax, the should revoke the personal income tax and establish a National Sales Tax upon non-luxury goods at a fair rate - say 4% (not the ridiculously inflated "Fair Tax" rate of 23%) and a graduated "Luxury Tax" (on items depending upon their price-to-base) of expensive goods. A properly run government that is kept in check and prohibited from unconstitutional activities doesn't need 23 cents of every dollar spent on the basics.

The REAL Fair National Tax:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
• Refunds in advance, or eliminates the need to pay the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS

Basic Necessities:
Food, clothing, and essential school supplies at a base price would be exempt. That is, the lowest priced goods for essentials - meats, dairy products, grains, vegetables, hats, socks, underwear, shirts, pants, skirts, dresses, shoes, boots and coats, etc. - would establish a "base price" for necessities. Any item from the base price to 20% more would be tax free. Items priced 21-30% and all non-essential goods and services from a base price to 30% over base would be taxed at 4%. Items priced 31% or more over the base price would increase the tax rate by the percentage over base. For instance, 1.) a basic pair of socks might cost $1.00, 2.) a brand name pair might cost $1.30, 3.) a designer pair might cost $1.50, while 4.) another designer pair costs $2.50 and 5.) an exotic pair might cost $5.00. The taxes collected on these items would be:

1.) No tax
2.) 4% = 5 cents
3.) 4% x 50% = 6%, or 9 cents
4.) 4% x 150% = 10% or 25 cents
5.) 4% x 500% = 20% or 1 dollar

A citizen buying nothing but the basic essentials in life need never pay taxes again! The more you buy, and the better quality you buy, the higher taxes you pay - and obviously the more you can afford to pay them. As long as the basic essentials of life are kept tax free, there can be no "fairer" taxing system than this. It doesn't punish people for providing for themselves and their families, and only those who can afford to pay the taxes will pay the taxes.

Basic housing rental might also escape the sales tax, while more luxurious rentals and purchases could be taxed.

All public ground transportation would be tax-free, but personal vehicles, air and sea travel would be taxed. This would encourage the use of public transportation, increasing the receipts from public transportation, thereby encourage the building of more public transportation (and saving natural resources), increasing availability of public transportation, further stimulating the use of public transportation, etc.

Prescription medications and prescribed medical supplies would be tax free, as would emergency medical treatment. Elective and non-emergency procedures would be taxed.

Still working on it... 

2) Defense Spending
_3__ a) Armed forces personnel training
_2__ b) Intelligence operations (HUMAN Intelligence)
_3__ c) Military hardware
_3__ d) Modernization of weaponry and equipment
_3__ e) National missile defense
_2__ f) Pay for active duty personnel
_2__ g) Programs to improve troop retention rates
_3__ h) Research and development of new weapons
_3__ i) Troop and equipment readiness
_6__ j) Other or expanded categories:
Immediate (120 days) pull ALL troops & equipment from foreign nations not currently engaged in hostile activities (Iraq & Afghanistan - you break it, you gotta fix it). Foreign nations would be given 90 days to a.) cede military buildings, bases, and outposts, free of charge, to the US for the protection of THEIR nation, AND b.) pay for all utilities, repairs, improvements and maintenance on these locations upon receipt of itemized bill (at standard rates) for verifiable actions AND, c.) provide for $150 per day per active duty individual stationed or operating within their national borders. If ALL THREE of these conditions are met, the bases and personnel would be allowed to remain in current positions. If REFUSAL of any of these terms, nation refusing would be given the opportunity to purchase in-place military equipment (duly sanitized of classified components) prior to removal.

b) Intelligence operations (HUMAN Intelligence)
I would authorize the use of all available assets - including persons of "questionable character" now disallowed - by our intelligence communities. "Whatever it takes to keep America Safe" would be the motto, short of the intelligence community being directly involved in actual criminal activity. I don't care what the assets do on their free time. If we catch them doing something, we'll treat them like any other criminal, but not utilizing an information asset simply because of implications of impropriety or illegal activity - well, saving lives of Americans is just a little more important.

f) Pay for active duty {Enlisted} personnel
Our enlisted personnel are underpaid and many of their families are struggling to get by. Family support facilities must be built, staffed and maintained sufficient to meet their needs WHEREVER they are stationed. Our troops serve out of patriotism, not for financial gain. We should not abuse this sense of duty and honor by failing to take care of their families while they are serving their country.

g) Programs to improve troop retention rates
Congressmen risk nothing but their reputation by holding office, while our troops risk their very lives for serving their country. Yet Congress gets a vested pension after five (5) years of service, while servicemen have to put in 20 years before benefits begin -and Congress has REDUCED those benefits that they receive. Is that fair? Is it right?

I propose that Congressional service (and the current $188k/year + perks) is reward enough. All congressional pensions, retroactively, to members with less than 20 years service should be revoked. ( I would prefer all be revoked, regardless of term served) I further propose that the amounts of Congressional pensions not exceed the amount paid to the highest ranking field grade non-commissioned officer which, I believe, would be a (Command) Sergeant Major [Army], Master Chief Petty Officer [Navy], Sergeant Major/ Master Gunnery Sergeant [Marines] or Chief Master Sergeant [Air Force]. Congress should not receive a greater pension than those who put their lives at risk for their country, and NO CONGRESSIONAL PERSON has ever served their country as diligently as one who has attained the level of responsibility and service necessary to reach the rank of E-9 in the armed forces.

Military personnel serving in a war zone (or conflict/peacekeeping mission) who have not been injured should automatically qualify for a 50% pension for life, beginning at age 65. This means that, if they put themselves in harms way for the sake of their country - either overtly or covertly - they are entitled to the pension. NO Quibbling. They were willing to be injured or killed for their country. Senator or Congressperson - what have YOU risked lately?

If a military person is injured while on active duty and while in the performance of their duty, they should automatically receive a 75% pension regardless of the length of service, available immediately if the injury is disabling, at age 65 if it is not.

If a military person is killed, aside from any additional death benefits accruing to their beneficiaries, the named beneficiaries should receive 100% of their final pay rate (adjusted yearly for the cost of living) for the first 5 years, and a lifetime pension reduced by 1% of that rate per year to a minimum of 10%. This is for honoring our country with the sacrifice of a loved one, whom they are now deprived of.

Congress can go around voting for all manner of benefits and high salaries for themselves, but they have the AUDACITY to reduce or refuse benefits for the patriots who serve their country at the risk of their lives? Damn them to hell for the cheap bastards that they are!

Sorry I blew up.

3) Taxes
Using the key above, indicate what federal tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per tax, you can use a number more than once.
Family Income Taxes: 
_6__ a) Less than $12,000 
_6__ b) $12,001-$40,000 
_6__ c) $40,001-$100,000
_6__ d) $100,001-$180,000 
_6__ e) $180,001-$350,000 
_6__ f) $350,001 and above 
_6__ g) Other or expanded categories:

The personal income tax is an abomination and a fraud and must be forever eliminated and prohibited. If people want to support their country out of patriotism, they can buy bonds. The personal income tax places a dollar value on human life which would be repugnant even if it were a decent sum - say a million dollars or two - but the IRS and Congress would have us believe we are only worth (2008) $8,950.00:

2008 Inflation Adjustments Widen Tax Brackets,  
IR-2007-172, Oct. 18, 2007

The value of each personal and dependency exemption, available to most taxpayers, is $3,500, up $100 from 2007.

The new standard deduction is $10,900 for married couples filing a joint return (up $200), $5,450 for singles and married individuals filing separately (up $100) and $8,000 for heads of household (up $150).

What this means is that, no matter how much or how little you work in a year, no matter how easy or difficult your job is, no matter how poor or excellent you are at your job, as a HUMAN BEING, your net value - in terms of what you produce - is the same as everyone else: $8,950.00.

It doesn't matter if you are a doctor or a doorman - your value as a human being is less than $9000 to the Congress and the IRS. If you receive more than this amount in exchange for an entire year's worth of labor, then you owe TAXES on whatever you get over this amount. And the more you get, above this determination of your worth, the more TAXES you have to pay.

II just don't understand why people continue to accept being devalued this way.

Other Taxes:
_3__ a) Alcohol taxes
_3__ b) Capital gains taxes
_3__ c) Cigarette taxes
_5__ d) Corporate taxes
_3__ e) Gasoline taxes
_6__ f) Inheritance taxes
_1__ g) Other or expanded categories:

With the exception of inheritance taxes, these are all Constitutionally valid taxes. The Corporate taxes are on profits (income) and the rest (except Inheritance) are perfectly acceptable excise taxes (though they may be a bit high).

d) Corporate taxes:
People who want something for nothing are always griping about how much corporations make and how little they pay - but what makes them think they have the right to demand that corporations make LESS? What makes these people think it is right to take what someone ELSE earned (created) for their own use?

Corporations - and businesses, in general - are what provide people with JOBS. If you want more money, get a better friggin' job! Don't demand money from someone who is good at what they do, BECOME good at what YOU can do. I believe Corporate and business profit taxes should be a FLAT 10% rate. If this were so, businesses would FLOCK to the US to set up shop here, employing hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of quality American workers.

High taxes depress an economy and drive businesses away to lower taxed areas. Low taxes help build an economy by enticing businesses away from higher tax areas - and then employing the people in that area.

It's all about the money, people. The more money a business can save in producing their goods or services, the greater the profits. The greater the profits, the higher the tax revenue received... and the greater the chance that the business will want to stay, expand production, and hire more people. What is so difficult about this concept?

f) Inheritance taxes:
Inheritance taxes are absurd. Just because a dead guy gives his money away (though admittedly, that is a true gain to the recipient) why does the government deserve a cut? I could be talked out of abolishing the inheritance tax, but the rates would have to be cut dramatically.

Deductions/Credits :
_6__ a) Charitable contribution deduction
_6__ b) Child tax credit
_6__ c) Earned income tax credit
_6__ d) Medical expense deduction
_6__ e) Mortgage deduction
_6__ f) Student loan credit
_6__ g) Other or expanded categories:

Without a personal income tax, there is no need for any personal income tax deductions.

Other Taxes (g):
4) Do you support the permanent repeal of the federal estate tax?
_X__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
5) Do you support requiring the federal budget to be balanced each year?
_X__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
6) Other or expanded principles:
That is, I believe pretty self explanatory.

Campaign Finance and Government Reform Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding campaign finance and government reform.
___ a) Support public taxpayer funding for federal candidates who comply with campaign spending limits.
_x__ b) Remove all contribution limits on federal campaigns and parties.
___ c) Support prohibiting ads containing candidates' name that are paid for by third parties from airing 60 days before a primary and 30 days before a
general federal election.
___ d) Support instant run-off voting (IRV).
_x__ e) Support designating Election Day as a national holiday.
_x__ f) Support giving the President the power of the line item veto for items concerning appropriations.
___ g) Support limiting the President’s use of signing statements in order to prevent an alternative interpretation of the bill.
_x__ h) Support a federal shield law to protect reporter-source privilege.
_x__ i) Other or expanded principles:

b) Remove all contribution limits on federal campaigns and parties.
Who are we to tell people who to support or how much to spend doing it? I might support corporate limits - corporations aren't people - but when it comes to individuals we can't really tell them they can't spend their money any way they want.

e) Support designating Election Day as a national holiday.
Of course it should be a holiday. It's hard enough to get people to vote. It doesn't have to be a PAID holiday (who are we to tell businesses to give employees free money) but it SHOULD be illegal to penalize an employee for exercising the right to vote. Once again, CONGRESS has the unimpeded right to vote - shouldn't the people, too?

f) Support giving the President the power of the line item veto for items concerning appropriations.
Absolutely! The reason we have such a bloated bureaucracy and out of control spending is this tit-for-tat compromise style of backroom pay-off politics. Not only should the President have the line item veto, it should be law that each vetoed item require it's own override. This would bring the pork politics back into the light and require the Congress to explain why the money should be spent. In fact, I would support a law that said one topic, one bill. If it is not directly related to the main topic of the bill, it cannot be attached to the bill at any time. Any attachments to or expenditures authorized by the bill, after passed and signed, would have to directly impact the implementation of the bill as passed.

h) Support a federal shield law to protect reporter-source privilege.
We cannot compel criminals to testify against themselves. How can we compel a journalist to testify against someone else? Especially when it might result in that other person's death? On the other hand, publishing unsubstantiated rumors or innuendo and not being able to back it up with PROOF... well the object of the unsubstantiated accounts should have SEVERE recourse against the person making those statements.

If you can't prove it - or refuse to prove it - then it should never be brought out to the point of damaging someone else.

 i) Other or expanded principles:
All government offices (and their personnel) having anything to do with social programs should immediately CEASE and DESIST all such activities and convert over to inventorying (for sale or transfer) their office equipment. Employees would be put on notice that they need to find other employment within one month, at which time they would be given 2 weeks severance and politely told to go find a REAL job.

Crime Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding crime.
_x*_ a) Support the use of the death penalty for federal crimes.
___ b) Eliminate the use of the death penalty for federal crimes.
___ c) Support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released.
___ d) Support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment.
___ e) Reduce prison sentences for those who commit non-violent crimes.
___ f) Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs.
_x__ g) Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
_x__ h) Support strict penalties for internet crime (e.g. hacking, identity theft, worms/viruses).
_x__ i) Other or expanded principles:
a) Support the use of the death penalty for federal crimes.
I support the death penalty for ANY capital crimes, as well as crimes where the victim is not necessarily killed, but severely affected for the remainder of their lives (sexual abuse crimes). I would only support a death penalty trial for criminals CAUGHT IN THE ACT. No evidentiary trial may result in the death penalty. Evidence can be manufactured.

Implementation of the penalty:
1.) The Judge, Jury, and Victim (if an adult), MUST be present at the execution (unless they have died prior to the execution)
2.) Each of them must be seated with an unobstructed view of the offender.
3.) Each of them will have a button in front of them which may be "THE" button that initiates the penalty phase, whatever it may be.
4.) All buttons must be actuated or NONE of the buttons will work, and the convicted person will have their sentence commuted to life without possibility of parole.
5.) The button pushers only get ONE chance to implement the execution. If they cannot act on their conviction the first time, they do not get another chance.

g) Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
I think if we LEGALIZED pot for adults, 18 and over, we would have ALOT more control over the situation than we do now. We'd have less cross-border smuggling and more tax revenue as well. Pot isn't any more dangerous (and possibly less dangerous) than alcohol.

h) Support strict penalties for internet crime (e.g. hacking, identity theft, worms/viruses).
Of course. These activities are either theft of information and intellectual property (not to mention breaking and entering, albeit electronically) or actual destruction of private property. Of course they should be prosecuted. And then the little brats who have all this technical ability should be hired by our intelligence services to work against our enemies. After serving their time, of course.

Education Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding education.
___ a) Support the federal government funding universal pre-kindergarten programs.
___ b) Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any public school.
___ c) Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any private or religious school.
___ d) Allow teachers and professionals to receive federal funding to establish charter or magnet schools.
___ e) Increase funding for the Pell Grant program.
___ f) Decrease interest rates of Stafford Loans.
___ g) Support federal tax incentives to help families save for college.
___ h) Ban university financial aid officers from owning stock in or accepting gifts from student loan lenders.
___ i) Require universities to disclose financial relationships with lenders.
___ j) Support federal education standards and testing requirements for k-12 students (No Child Left Behind).
___ k) Eliminate all federal education standards and testing requirements for k-12 students (No Child Left Behind).
_x__ l) Other or expanded principles:
The government has no business conducting education and should not expend public monies directly on students or school districts. See above for further clarification ("Budgetary, Spending, and Tax Issues, Question 1, Budget Priorities")

Employment Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding employment.
___ a) Increase funding for national job-training programs that retrain displaced workers or teach skills needed in today’s job market.
_x__ b) Reduce government regulation of the private sector in order to encourage investment and economic expansion.
_x__ c) Encourage employers to offer child care services, flex-time scheduling, comp -time, and unpaid leave for family emergencies.
___ d) Increase the federal minimum wage.
_x__ e) Support the right of workers to unionize.
_x__ f) Eliminate all federal programs designed to reduce unemployment.
_x__ g) Other or expanded principles:

_x__ b) Reduce government regulation of the private sector in order to encourage investment and economic expansion:
I don't really know what regulations this refers to, but I will say this: THE LIMIT of government regulation regarding Private enterprise should be to see that no inadvertent, intentional or negligent physical or financial harm is perpetrated against employees, customers or the general public, and that only those legally allowed to work in the United States have American jobs. I've got nothing against foreign workers - I just want them to be LEGAL foreign workers and not "instant" American Citizens because we (meaning the business community) need their labor.

c) Encourage employers to offer child care services, flex-time scheduling, comp -time, and unpaid leave for family emergencies.
ENCOURAGE, yes - MANDATE, no. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. If they want the best employees, they will pay more and provide more. Better employees means better productivity. Better productivity reduces cost per unit and increases profits. Better benefits generate a better corporate image, increasing consumer fidelity, translating to more sales and better profits. Pretty simple.

e) Support the right of workers to unionize.
I fully support the right of workers to unionize - and then the right of the employer to tell them to get the hell off his property. An employer's business does NOT belong to the employees. An employers business does NOT belong to the government. An employers business is the EMPLOYERS business and they have the right to run it any way they want - even if that means running it into the ground - as long as they are causing no direct harm to others. Firing striking workers or refusing to hire unionists isn't causing them harm. There is no "right" to work unless you do it yourself or find someone who wants you to work for them. If you work for someone else, you do it the way they want it (provided they don't want you to do something illegal) or you quit or you get fired and that is that.

f) Eliminate all federal programs designed to reduce unemployment.
This is a trick statement. Federal programs, in this sense, mean forcing private sector business to do things the way the GOVERNMENT says they should do them - which I reject. If the government wants to reduce employment, all they need to do is get the hell out of the way of employers. They need to cut taxes, weed out stupid regulations, and quit trying to tell employers who to hire, how to hire, when to hire and how they can fire people. If the government folks want to run a business, they need to quit working for the government and start their own business. That'll help reduce unemployment - until they try to put all their feel-good, vote-catching policies into practice.

g) Other or expanded principles:
You can't legislate who people like and/or dislike. If an employer doesn't want to hire someone for ANY REASON, the government does not have the right to FORCE them to. There are bigots and racists and chauvinists and plain old jerks in the world and the government can't legislate them into perfect angels. At most, they will force these people to hide their feelings and stew until they boil over. That's how people "go postal." What you can do is quit with all the enforced political correctness and, if you don't like someone's hiring practices, don't patronize their business. Heck - you can even boycott or protest them (from a respectable distance). Sure the lawyers wont like it much, but when was the last time you worried about a lawyer finding work? They will get over it. Rescind these laws that do nothing but piss people off and generate lawsuits. Move on.

Environment and Energy Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding the environment and energy.
_x__ a) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
_x__ b) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
_x__ c) Support increased development of traditional energy resources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil).
_x__ d) Strengthen emission controls on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
_x__ e) Strengthen fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
_x__ f) Support domestic oil exploration in areas that are currently restricted.
_x__ g) Encourage further development and use of alternative fuels.
___ h) Support the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
_x__ i) Support research and development of nuclear reactors as an alternative energy source.
___ j) Allow energy producers to trade pollution credits under “cap and trade” laws.
___ k) Support international mandatory emission targets to limit global warming.
___ l) Support international voluntary emission targets to limit global warming.
_x__ m) Other or expanded principles:

a) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
Duh. Clean water is essential to life. This isn't an "environmental" problem, this is a problem the Government was specifically created to fight. Why they are evading the issue is obvious - they are too focused on getting their pockets...uh, "Campaign Coffers"... lined with corporate contributions. And maybe a sweet "Consulting" position when they are out of office.

An HONEST government would have an army of inspectors out there shutting down businesses and incarcerating corporate polluters. This is the government's JOB, which they are shirking. Oh sure, they will indict the occasional polluter to gain a few headlines - usually around election time - but what happens next? Look into it. You may be disgusted.

b) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
See "a)" above.

c) Support increased development of traditional energy resources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil).
Yes. Develop with strict regulations regarding disruption of the ecology, and then cap the resources once tapped. I have no problem draining the resources of foreign nations first and I don't understand why others do - aside from the fact that they tend to use those petrodollars to attack us, rather than thank us for making them wealthy. The petroleum producing nations obviously never ran a retail business. If you kill all your customers, there's a high likelihood there won't be any repeat business... and you can only go through so many customers before word gets out.

Developing our own resources gives us the ability to dictate terms. More supply reduces demand. Even if we had to fake it, by telling the OPEC nations to give us a good price or piss off, we let them know that they are NOT the only game in town. Meanwhile, we put other programs into effect...

d) Strengthen emission controls on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
The only reason we have dirty engines is because the manufacturers have not had any incentive to create clean ones. I suspect that polluting engines burn more oil. I further suspect that the majority stockholders of American auto industries are eerily similar to the majority stockholders of the oil companies. Can't prove it. Haven't even tried to research it. Just seems to make sense.

e) Strengthen fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
If the auto industry wanted to stop the flight of consumers to foreign manufacturers, all they would have to do is think like an American and produce a better, cleaner, and more efficient automobile. But no. They insist on barely meeting the minimum mpg requirements "suggested" by the government. I know that I said government should not dictate the way a business should run it's business - and I stand by that. The government can, however give incentives through taxation. If a car meets the minimum standards of safety and efficiency, it is assessed 100% of the luxury tax rate. For every two percent of efficiency above that base, the government reduces the tax by 1%. Overnight (relatively speaking) quality vehicles getting 60-100 miles to the gallon would begin to appear. It's all about the money, people.

f) Support domestic oil exploration in areas that are currently restricted.
See "c.)" above.

g) Encourage further development and use of alternative fuels.
Encourage? Sure, why not. Who knows what may be out there. Of course, "encourage" in the political sense means "spend money,"  and that is NOT something I would support. Scientific research with results published freely on the internet, maybe, but no financing private sector enterprises and no more government research boondoggles. No grants. No giveaways. Maybe a one-time prize for a demonstrably viable commercial product. That might work.

i) Support research and development of nuclear reactors as an alternative energy source.
Absolutely. I believe nuclear power plants can be made even safer and cleaner - it's all in the design. But really - we have a perfectly good desert west of the Rockies just waiting for the development of parabolic solar power plants. If you were to combine this technology with the Stirling Engine, the profits would be astounding. And it is, after all, all about the money - right people? C'mon, you KNOW the truth, no matter how much even the most ardent environmentalist or anti-materialist may deny it. When it comes to civilization, money talks - feel-good visionary bull walks (unless it also makes money).

m) Other or expanded principles:
Encourage energy efficient conversion of existing buildings, and energy efficient construction of new buildings using passive solar, active solar, higher insulation, more efficient appliances, etc. Since homes will carry the National Sales Tax, incentivize the new construction by offering tax reduction of 1% for every 2% reduction in energy requirements from the base model.  Businesses could get a (profit) tax reduction for installing upgrades or constructing new energy efficient buildings (up to 50% of their outlays). Power companies could receive a reduced tax rate for building renewable energy production plants.

Gun Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding guns.
_x__ a) Allow individuals to carry concealed guns.
_x__ b) Require a license to carry a concealed gun.
___ c) Require a license to possess a gun.
___ d) Ban the sale, ownership or possession of handguns except by law enforcement or other government officials.
___ e) Require gun owners to store guns in a safe or lockbox, or to have them disabled with a trigger lock.
_x__ f) Allow individuals to carry guns on college campuses.
On (g) and (h), using the key above, indicate what levels you support for the following categories.
_3__ g) Enforcement of existing restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
_3__ h) Restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
_6/1_ i) Other or expanded principles:

a) Allow individuals to carry concealed guns.
Provided they have the proper training and licensing, I don't see why not.

b) Require a license to carry a concealed gun.
Of course they need to be licensed. We license people to ensure they know how to drive a deadly piece of machinery (though we do it poorly and, apparently, illegal immigrants are exempt from the requirements Citizens must follow.) In the case of concealed carry, Citizens should be required to complete a police/military style S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons & Tactics), H.R.T. (Hostage Rescue Team) or Q.R.F. (Quick Reaction Force) firearms safety and handling course - including shoot-house and street-fire exercises. They would pay for the course and the License, just like teenagers need to do now when first getting their driver's license.

f) Allow individuals to carry guns on college campuses.
I do not see any difference between on campus and off campus. If a person is QUALIFIED to carry, they are qualified to carry anywhere - with the possible exception of courtrooms. Good judges are hard to find.

g) Enforcement of existing restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
Some are fine and dandy, others gotta go. No matter where you live, if you are a Legal American Citizen, you have the right (and possibly even the responsibility) to own a firearm. In fact, of we held to the Constitutional restrictions  on standing armies, it could easily be said that it IS a Constitutional Responsibility for every legal adult American to own - and be familiar with the use of - military small arms. Technically, we are all a part of the "Militia (in reserve) of the United States."

h) Restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
Only for criminals, foreigners, and untrained youth. Children should not be allowed to purchase firearms.

i) Other or expanded principles:
Schools should have a firearms training and safety course as part of the PE curriculum. much like they have (or used to have) an archery course. I would start them out young (elementary school) with low-power BB guns, move up to high-powered pellet guns in secondary school, and finish it off with .22 caliber pistol/rifle course in high school. Shocking, isn't it?

The thing is, when you teach safety and familiarity with weapons, you remove the "mystique" that so often entices children to pick up a firearm unsupervised and play with it. Part of the courses would include increasingly GRAPHIC (by age group) examples of poor firearms handling and their effects.

Health Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding health.
___ a) Implement a universal healthcare program to guarantee coverage to all Americans, regardless of income.
___ b) Expand eligibility for tax-free medical savings accounts.
_x__ c) Allow the importation of prescription drugs into the United States.
___ d) Support expanding prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
___ e) Offer tax credits to individuals and small businesses to offset the cost of insurance coverage.
___ f) Support expanding child healthcare programs.
_x__ g) Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes.
_x__ h) Providing healthcare is not a responsibility of the federal government.
_x__ i) Other or expanded principles

c) Allow the importation of prescription drugs into the United States.
Either that, or regulate the export of pharmaceuticals so that all nations are on a parity as to price. These pharmaceutical companies deserve to make a profit on their investment in research, but it shouldn't all be on the shoulders of the American Citizen. If aspirin sells for 1.50 wholesale to Americans, it darned well better not be discounted for Canadian (or any other country) citizens.

g) Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes.
Just legalize it already.

h) Providing healthcare is not a responsibility of the federal government.
Absolutely correct. Nor is the government authorized by the Constitution to do so. Regulating access and quality of care, however, IS a function of the government.

 i) Other or expanded principles
Still working on it...

Immigration Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding immigration.
___ a) Decrease the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country.
_x__ b) Establish English as the official national language.
_x__ c) Support a temporary worker program.
_x__ d) Support harsher financial punishments for employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
___ e) Support amnesty for illegal immigrants already working in the United States.
_x__ f) Illegal immigrants should have to return to their countries of origin before being considered for citizenship.
___ g) Illegal immigrants should be given a pathway to citizenship.
_x__ h) Support merit-based visas over family-based visas.
_x__ i) Other or expanded principles:

b) Establish English as the official national language.
Yes. Make it law. Require immigrants to be able to speak and read English fluently before being allowed to obtain employment - or Citizenship - as well. We cannot afford to print everything in multiple languages - ecologically, financially and, most importantly, from a SAFETY standpoint, having people who can't read and write and speak English fluently places them and others in grave danger under any number of situations. Tourists can babble away in whatever language they are comfortable with, but all workers and Citizens should be REQUIRED to be able to communicate effectively with other Citizens. In English.

c) Support a temporary worker program.
Absolutely. We need the workers. Just make them legal, English proficient and LIMIT the amount of American Monies they can transfer out of the country.

d) Support harsher financial punishments for employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. AND
f) Illegal immigrants should have to return to their countries of origin before being considered for citizenship.

Doesn't anyone understand the meaning of illegal? It doesn't mean "bad" or "naughty" or "Mexican" or "circumstantially forgivable." Something is illegal when it violates a statute, regulation or other law. Against or not authorized by the law. Also called illicit or unlawful. CRIMINAL.

Both the illegal alien and the supervisor who hired them are CRIMINALS conducting illegal activity. They should be arrested, brought to trial, sentenced. The business entity who ALLOWED this activity should be heavily fined for not monitoring sufficiently the activities of their employees. After the sentences are served, the illegal aliens should be deported unceremoniously.

There are three basic reasons why this problem hasn't been fixed already:
1.) Businesses need workers - cheap workers - to maintain their profits;
2.) "Illegal Workers" can be paid illegal wages and treated with illegal disrespect - almost with impunity; and
3.) The ultimate goal is the integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico into the "North American Union" in order to battle the rising influence of the European Union and their (supposedly) more stable "Euro."

h) Support merit-based visas over family-based visas.
I don't really know what that means. If it means what I think it means, then it is stupid and obvious. EVERYTHING in America is SUPPOSED to be merit based. It's the socialist "PC" crowd that keeps hammering away at this most basic American understanding.

 i) Other or expanded principles:
Still working on it...

International Aid, International Policy, and Trade Issues :
International Aid: Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding international aid.
___ a) Support the United States granting aid to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives.
___ b) Support the United States granting aid to countries when it is in the security interests of the United States.
___ c) Eliminate United States aid for any nation with documented human rights abuses.
___ d) Aid granted by the United States should be scaled back and eventually eliminated.
_x__ e) Other or expanded principles:

Still working on it...This is a toughie - but what it comes down to is that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY, IT'S THE PEOPLES MONEY AND THEY HAVE NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO GIVE IT AWAY.

International Policy: Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding international policy.
a) Should the United States continue to provide leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
b) Should the United States support the creation of a Palestinian state?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
c) Should the United States impose greater international sanctions on Iran if it continues to defy United Nations mandates?
___ Yes ___ No _*__ Undecided
d) Should the United States support the Lebanese government against insurgent forces? _*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
e) Should the United States maintain its troop levels in Iraq?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
f) Should the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
g) Discuss your proposals for Iraq. (100 words or less. Please use an attached page if the space below is not adequate.) See below

h) Should the United States apply greater economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea if it fails to suspend its nuclear program?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
i) Should the United States increase financial support for Afghanistan?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided
j) Should the United States increase military support for Afghanistan?
_x__ Yes ___ No _ __ Undecided
k) Should the United States trade nuclear fuel to India for civilian purposes?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
l) Should the United States decrease financial support for Pakistan?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
m) Should the United States decrease military support for Pakistan?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
n) Should the United States be involved in bringing an end to the violence in Darfur, Sudan? _x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
o) Should the United States be involved in bringing an end to the violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
p) Should the United States provide economic and military support to the Transitional Government of Somalia?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided
q) Should the United States use sanctions to encourage the government of Zimbabwe to end its human rights abuses?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
r) Should the United States support the creation of an independent nation of Kosovo?
___ Yes ___ No _x__ Undecided
s) Other or expanded principles:

America is not the world's policeman, but we cannot sit idly by and watch genocide, murder, starvation, invasion, etc. My proposal is this:

Announce to the world that we have a new foreign policy.

"If a leader or government intentionally inflicts misery upon their citizenry or their neighbors, we will systematically and unilaterally begin cutting the head off of the snake. We will NOT go to war, unless invaded or attacked upon our own soil - but we will retaliate IMMEDIATELY against the head of state sheltering, authorizing or initiating these actions. The retaliation will be a death sentence and we will not cease until it is carried out. That is ALL we will do. We will not occupy a country, we will not rebuild a nation, we will not give financial aid (as a government) to any Nation - friend or foe - except through the good graces of our Private Citizens. If the NEXT group of leaders ascends to power and repeats these activities, they can expect the same treatment. If, however, the new gang treats their citizens and neighbors with respect and dignity, then they have nothing to fear from us."

Now I am sure that I have floored a good number of viewers with this statement. Take a moment to reflect, however, on the root cause of all evils perpetrated upon civilians.

I have no knowledge of mass civilian populations ever taking up arms against themselves or others without some form of political leadership goading them into it. What I AM aware of are laws against "political assassination" existing in nearly every nation on earth. It's apparently okay to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians in wars and rebellions, but from the dawn of time, there has been a tacit agreement between political leaders that it is "in exceedingly bad taste" to target heads of state, upper level government officials, or (in the old wars) the Officer Corps. Now, why is this, I wonder?

If anyone should be on the front lines in a conflict, it should be the two SOB's that started it. It makes sense to target the warmongers rather than the cannon fodder. It costs less, is less intrusive, easier to clean up after, and it saves lives.

What's not to like about this concept? The only people that would have to worry would be the ones that shouldn't be allowed to hold power in the first place. After a few graphic examples of our resolve in this matter - and no doubt many attempts upon MY life for trying to do the logical and economical thing - the world would probably settle down to a happy international fellowship of good will. Just gotta take out the bad guys - not the poor schmucks forced to do their dirty work.

It is a conspiracy of the Elites that keep wars and rebellions recurring throughout the history of mankind. But now we have the technology to "reach out and touch" anyone, anywhere in the world, no matter how sheltered or protected. I say get on with it and let the GOOD people of the world get on with their true, peaceful destiny.

International Trade: Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding international trade.
a) Do you support the United States imposing economic sanctions on China?
___ Yes _*__ No ___ Undecided
b) Do you support the United States imposing trade sanctions on Venezuela?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided
c) Do you support the United States involvement in free trade agreements?
___ Yes _*__ No ___ Undecided
d) Do you support the United States involvement in intergovernmental organizations dedicated to trade?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
e) Other or expanded principles:

"Free Trade" is a political misnomer used to play on the American sense of fairness. The problem is, it's fair to everyone but Americans. Look - when it comes down to it, the only thing we have left to export anymore is a few tech gadgets, some intellectual property, and a bunch of food... all of which we import more of than we export. I have a better idea:

Free trade will exist with another country as long as there is parity. When any other country falls short of importing an equivalent dollar value of American goods, a tariff (A tax levied on imports.) is imposed to bring it back to parity. Since the tariff is on the goods entering America, it IS actually a tax on American consumers. At first, this will hurt us. Eventually, however, American ingenuity will triumph when American businesses begin producing these same goods for LESS. That means more businesses (remember, we already reduced the business tax to a flat 10%) creating more goods and more jobs.

National Security Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding national security.
a) Do you support using military tribunals to try suspected terrorists when ordinary civilian courts are deemed inappropriate or impractical?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided Foreign nationals, yes. American Citizens, no.
b) Should law enforcement agencies have greater discretion to monitor domestic communications, to prevent future terrorist attacks?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided Foreign origin or destination countries ONLY
c) Should the United States hold foreign states accountable for terrorists who operate in their country?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided Absolutely - see new foreign policy declaration.
d) Should the federal government increase funding to states and cities for homeland security?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
e) Do you support pre-emptive military strikes against countries deemed to be a threat to United States national security?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided Absolutely - see new foreign policy declaration.
f) Do you support the creation of a federal identification card system?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided Hell no.
g) Do you support long-term use of National Guard troops to supplement the armed forces in assignments overseas?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided I do not support overseas missions, except disasters. In the case of an actual war, then maximum power for minimum time to take out the political leadership that started the aggression - see new foreign policy declaration.
h) Should the United States expand its missile defense shield?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided You bet.
i) Other or expanded principles:

See new foreign policy declaration.

Social Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding social issues.
a) Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?
_*__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided I think all Citizens should be allowed "contract" unions spelling out the specific rights and responsibilities of all parties in any configuration. This would not be MARRIAGE, but a contractual obligation for an agreed upon term, conferring (if so agreed) or denying (if so stipulated) the equivalent benefits granted married couples by all outside agencies.
b) Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided "Marriage" has become the secularized term for "Holy Matrimony." It was secularized only (relatively) recently to accommodate couples who had no profound religious opinion. It used to be (in the western world) that the only way to get married was through a Religious Ceremony and by the sanction of whatever religion (and their deity) you belonged to. With the advent of atheism and agnosticism so prevalent in modern society, it was deemed necessary to provide for a secular "marriage" between a man and a woman. In either case, marriage comes from Matrimony and Matrimony comes from the religious union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. With the creation of "Contractual Civil Unions" I see no reason to rob the various religions of their traditional values.
c) Do you support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided No. Get over it. Why are we even talking about this?
d) Should sexual orientation be included in federal anti-discrimination laws?
___ Yes _*__ No ___ Undecided The federal and State governments should be forbidden from trying to legislate interpersonal relations between Citizens. If people want to be jerks, so be it - as long as they do no physical harm, they have the right to be as moronic as they want to be.
e) Do you support federal funding for research on existing embryonic stem cell lines?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided Adult stem cells seem to be working now.
f) Do you support federal funding to create lines of stem cells from new embryos?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided Adult stem cells seem to be working now.
g) Should the federal government consider race and gender in government contracting decisions?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided The federal and State governments should concentrate only on the best person with the best ABILITIES to do the job. Period. Someone is always best - and it has nothing to do with color, creed or gender.
h) Do you support affirmative action in public college admissions?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided
i) Should the federal government continue affirmative action programs?
___ Yes _x__ No ___ Undecided
j) Should the federal government regulate internet gambling?
_x__ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided Regulation is their job. Why are we even asking these things?
k) Other or expanded principles:

It seems that people have such a screwed up misconception of the proper role of government (from years of government overstepping its bounds) that they just can't get a grip on right and wrong  - even when it comes to these questions. It's amazing and kind of sad...

Social Security Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding Social Security.
___ a) Allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in private accounts that they manage themselves.
___ b) Ensure the viability of Social Security by increasing the payroll tax.
___ c) Decrease benefits paid to retirees.
___ d) Support proportional increases of Social Security benefits based on the cost of living index.
___ e) Raise the retirement age for individual eligibility to receive full Social Security benefits.
_x__ f) Other or expanded principles:

The government has no business running charities, insurance, education, health care or other private enterprises. People who paid into the Social Security system should be refunded in full, 2008 adjusted dollars, and the program should be immediately ended. Private retirement managers can pick up the slack, and will do so gladly and more efficiently. Get your retirement dollars OUT OF THE HANDS of the FED and the Politicians.

Welfare and Poverty Issues : Indicate (X) which principles you support (if any) regarding welfare and poverty.
___ a) Require welfare recipients to spend at least 40 hours a week in a combination of work and training programs.
___ b) Continue to give states and local governments flexibility in and responsibility for welfare programs through federal block grants.
___ c) Support housing assistance for welfare recipients.
_x__ d) Abolish all federal welfare programs.
_x__ e) Other or expanded principles

See above and all the redundant previous answers already given...

Presidential Priorities : On an attached page, disk, or via email, please explain in a total of 200 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected.
If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.

Don't look for a link to this stuff - I think I pretty much said it all right here, on this page.

CANDIDATE MUST SIGN SURVEY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE
Candidate Name: MEG Raven
Party: Right Wing Conservative (RWC) Libertarian
Signature M.E.G.
Date: 16 February 2008

Purchase Links:  Food & Seeds    Gear    Medical    Tools   
                              Weapons & Ammo      Computer/Internet

US Military Gear:  Air Force    Army    Marines    Navy   
Also:  Coast Guard    Law Enforcement (Working on it)

(Purchasable Item links based on bug-out/preparation lists)

Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2012, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572